Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this issue, of course, relates to hydroelectric power. This is a subject on which we have been working for several months with interested Members, with the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Nebraska, and their staffs, in an effort to achieve consensus on a very difficult issue. I very much thank them for all the work they have put into this effort and their efforts to come to agreement as to how we should proceed. Unfortunately, we have not been able to resolve the issues. I know hydropower plays a very significant role in providing needed energy to the entire Nation and particularly to the Northwest. It is a very important energy source in other parts of the country as well, particularly New England. There are now five first-degree amendments and three second-degree amendments that have been filed to this bill with regard to the topic of hydroelectric relicensing. So the proliferation of amendments reflects the fact that, in spite of a lot of good work that has been done, there is no consensus about how to proceed. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment the Senators from Nebraska and Idaho are offering today. In my view, it does not reflect a consensus. At this juncture, given the procedural posture of the bill, I believe the best course is to adopt the amendment I have offered which provides that there be a review undertaken by the relevant agencies with respect to two aspects of the hydroelectric relicensing process. Let me recount what those are. First, whether provisions for alternative mandatory conditions such as those included in the Nelson-Craig amendment would work to improve the process and, secondly, methods that should be adopted to streamline the process. The hydroelectric relicensing process has come under criticism. Much of that criticism is justified due to its complexity and the length of time it takes to issue a renewal license. These delays are not good for government, and they are of great concern to my colleagues and to me as well. There are interagency efforts in place to try to improve that process. We need to encourage those efforts. We need to try to let those efforts play out. My amendment would do this by requiring all the involved agencies-- that includes the Secretary of the Interior, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Agriculture--to report on whether the alternative would require all the agencies to work together to make recommendations to the Congress on how we can improve the process. The second thing the amendment does is require the agencies to report on whether the alternative mandatory conditioning authority provisions included in the underlying amendment would work. My amendment would require recommendations as to what standard should apply with respect to alternative mandatory conditions and the nature of participation of interested parties. In addition, the amendment I have offered would require an assessment of whether this new authority would delay an already complex and slow process, which is a very real concern I have. The Nelson-Craig amendment would adopt alternative mandatory conditioning authority while doing nothing to streamline the process. I am concerned that the amendment, rather than improving the process, will inadvertently add complexity and delay to an already overly complex and slow relicensing process. I am also concerned that the Craig amendment undermines protections for Federal lands and resources provided for in the Federal Power Act. Under that act, mandatory conditions and prescriptions are developed by the Federal land management or resource agency for inclusion in the license to protect wildlife refuges, national parks, other Federal lands, and Indian reservations. This conditioning authority and these standards have been in place for over 80 years. The Senate energy bill provides new flexibility relating to this conditioning authority by including alternative mandatory conditioning authority. But the bill does this in a way that we believe is environmentally protective in an appropriate way. The amendment by the Senators from Nebraska and Idaho would change this alternative mandatory conditioning authority to make it less protective of Federal lands and resources by modifying the standard for alternative mandatory conditions from that included in the bill. Finally, the Craig amendment would give greater weight to the views of the license applicants over the views of States and tribes and the public. This is another change we believe is inappropriate and causes me to propose the amendment I have called up for consideration. I acknowledge these are difficult issues. Consensus has been difficult to achieve. Rather than proceeding with either the Craig amendment or the language in the Senate bill, the one before the Senate now, I believe the sound approach is to learn more about the implications of these provisions and seek expert input from the agencies involved, and that is what the amendment I have called up would do. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment I offer as an alternative to the Nelson-Craig amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the substitute for Title X of the Senate Amendment 2917, and title XIII, encompass significant bipartisan progress on the topic of climate change policy. This progress has been reached in discussions involving staff for many Senators with keen interests in this area, including myself and Senator Murkowski on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senators Byrd and Stevens, Senators Kerry and Hagel, and the chair and ranking members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. All these Committees that I just mentioned have important jurisdictional responsibilities under rule XXV related to the climate change provisions in this bill. There is one major area in the proposed changes to Senate Amendment 2917 that is still not in agreement, and that will be left to conference for further discussion, but will describe that in a moment. What has been agreed to, and for which there is commitment on the part of the co-sponsors of this amendment to advocate for here in the Senate and maintain in conference, is substantial. First, we have developed a streamlined set of findings and a Sense of Congress relating to climate change, the shared international responsibility to address the problem, and the role of the United States in that matrix of shared responsibility. Senate Amendment 2917 had, in effect, two sets of findings in this regard. Developing a single set of agreed-to-statements, on the part of a broad cross- section of Senators with active interests in climate change policy, is an important accomplishment. Second, we have taken the fundamental elements of S. 1008, introduced by Senators Byrd and Stevens and agreed to nearly all of them. S. 1008 was introduced on June 8, 2001 and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. That committee held a hearing on the bill on July 18, and marked the bill up in a business meeting on August 2, 2001. It was ordered reported by voice vote, and the Committee's report, as well as additional views of some members, was filed on November 15, 2001. This legislative history should be relevant to those who will be responsible for implementing these provisions. One of the agreed-to elements brought in from S. 1008 is a requirement for the development of a National Climate Change Strategy, which will be updated every 4 years. That Strategy and its updates will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, which will provide its findings and recommendation both to the President and to Congress. The Strategy will be the central focus for integrating, across the government, a consideration of the broad range of activities and action that can be taken to reduce, avoid, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions both in the United States and in other countries. The development of the Strategy is also intended to draw on broad participation from the public, scientific bodies, academia, industry, and various levels of State, local, and tribal governments. Another agreed-to element from S. 1008 is the creation of an Office of Climate Change Technology in the Department of Energy, and authority for creation of other necessary offices to carry out the National Climate Change Strategy in other agencies. The DOE Office will have a special role in bridging the gap that now exists between the more conventional energy technology R&D programs now in place at DOE and the necessary research that is pointing the way to breakthrough technologies that could have a pronounced effect on our ability to meet the climate change challenge. The substantial increase in authorization for this function that was contained in S. 1008 is maintained. Third, we have come to agreement on how to improve the structure of coordination of climate change science and monitoring programs across government, including the creation of a mechanism to fill gaps in research efforts among the various agency programs. Substantial portions of a bipartisan Commerce Committee bill, S. 1716, the Global Climate Change Act of 2001, introduced by Senators Kerry, Stevens, Hollings, Inouye and Akaka, are included in these sections. This bill emerged from a series of hearings held by the Committee during the 107th Congress on the state of scientific knowledge of climate change and its impacts and possible technological means to address the problem. These Commerce Committee provisions include amendments to the Global Change Research Act, as well as language that ensures the programs and capabilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to monitor, measure, understand, and respond to climate change and climate variability. The one area of remaining disagreement in Title X relates to the proposed White House Office of National Climate Change Policy, in Section 1013 of the proposed text for Title X. I believe that it would be true to say that the co-sponsors of this amendment, at a minimum, all support having a locus of accountability for the development and implementation of climate change policy in the Executive Office of the President. All of us believe that it should be headed by a Senate- confirmed appointee. We did not, however, reach consensus on how this position should be structured and whether the appointee should be a new or existing position. We have agreed to move forward to conference with the language of S. 1008, with the expectation that we would be able to engage the White House at that point and come to a final resolution of how to provide for the central accountability in the Executive Office of the President that is acceptable to all parties. On all other issues in Titles X and XIII aside from Section 1013, though, we are in agreement. We recommend their acceptance to our colleagues here in the Senate and, if adopted, plan to support these provisions strongly in conference.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 55 minutes from the time of the Senator from Nevada be yielded to the Senator from New York.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is not time either for or in opposition?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Whose time is that?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Reserving the right to object, as I understand it, the Senator from California continues to retain 2 minutes of her own time and, in addition, the Senator from New York has asked for an additional 2 minutes of time. I ask my colleagues if that will be sufficient for them to conclude their remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls in this period be charged equally against both sides.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate now consider amendment No. 3008; that amendment No. 3145 to amendment No. 3008 be modified by the changes at the desk; that amendment No. 3145, as modified, be agreed to; that amendment No. 3008, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vitiate the adoption of amendment No. 3061, adopted on March 21, and that the text of amendment No. 2917 stricken by amendment No. 3061 be reinstated.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the foregoing amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that amendments No. 3157 and amendment No. 3231 be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the pending amendment be set aside and that it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments: Amendments Nos. 3231, 3232, 3157, 3242, 3244, 3245, 3246, 3247, 3248, 3249, and 3250.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will yield myself up to 10 minutes to speak in favor of going ahead with the motion for cloture on this bill. This is the sixth week we have been on the energy bill on the Senate floor. Today is the 22nd legislative day we have worked on the bill. We will be voting this morning on cloture on the substitute amendment that was first laid down on February 15. It was modified to its present form on March 5. Since then, we have had a great many amendments. We have acted on 84 amendments to the substitute amendment. Of those 84 amendments, 68 were adopted, 9 were defeated or otherwise fell, and 7 were withdrawn. Seven other amendments are currently pending on the bill. One would think that dealing with 84 amendments on a bill would represent fairly good progress on a bill, and in many ways it does. We have taken up almost all the major issues on the bill, and they have been disposed of with very few exceptions. I appreciate the help of Senator Murkowski and others who have been active in this debate, trying to move this set of issues along and to move the legislation along. At the same time, we have had many days when Senators have not been willing to come to the Chamber and offer amendments. We have had periods when Senators have delayed votes on their amendments and been anxious to wait until conditions seemed more favorable before a vote would occur on their amendments. If we in fact were out of amendments, obviously that would be good news. The truth is, yesterday at the time of the filing deadline that was triggered by the cloture process, there were 115 additional amendments filed. Some of those amendments are variations on earlier amendments that have been filed. Some are variations on others that we understand can be handled. Clearly, we still have a substantial number of issues that Senators believe they need to have considered. I am also disappointed that our efforts to get unanimous consent on a finite list of amendments have been blocked. We have asked unanimous consent several times on the Senate floor to get agreement, not on time limits--we had never got to the stage where we were asking for time limits--but first, before we asked for time limits on amendments, we were trying to get a finite list of amendments. The effort to get that has been blocked. Even adoption of amendments that both managers of the bill have been willing to clear has been a problem for us. So we have not had, in my view, the cooperation we need to bring this bill to conclusion. We need to have that change quickly if we are going to continue on the bill and conclude action on it. I know there is great concern as we approach this cloture vote about the tax-related provisions. I strongly support those provisions, the tax incentive provisions that were voted out of the Finance Committee on February 28. I supported those. I believe they are dramatically better than the tax-related provisions that were attached to the House- passed energy bill last year. The argument was made yesterday that the Senate should now think of this bill as some sort of omnibus tax bill. I think that would be a big mistake, for us to now look on this measure as the major tax bill of the year and see this as an opportunity for all Senators to come and offer all sorts of provisions relating to taxes, particularly those that do not relate to energy taxes. I think that would be a very major mistake. This is not an omnibus tax bill. It is an energy bill. We need to bring debate on the bill to a close. I hope we can do so with tax provisions included. I know the Senator from Montana has tried to get unanimous consent to do that. I support us doing that, having the provisions coming out of the Finance Committee brought up, debated, and voted on. But clearly we need to keep in context that this is not the major tax bill the Senate is going to consider in this Congress, and therefore it should not be a vehicle for all sorts of non-energy- related tax proposals. I compliment our majority leader, Senator Daschle, for the enormous amount of floor time he has committed to trying to pass this bill. A lot of speeches have been made over the last several months implying that our majority leader was not committed to moving an energy bill through this body. His actions speak much louder than words and the rhetoric around here. It is clear from his actions and committing 5 weeks of the Senate's time to this important issue that he is committed to trying to get an energy bill through the Senate. I also appreciate the strong support that Senator Lott has been providing in trying to move to cloture and move ahead with invoking cloture and completing action on the bill. I think that is very important as well. Energy is a central policy concern in the Senate in this session. It is appropriately so. Our President has made it an agenda item for the country. Many of us have felt strongly that there are provisions in this bill that should be enacted into law. I hope we can do so. If you exclude Mondays and Fridays from the calculation, we now have 15 working and voting days between now and the Memorial Day recess. Clearly, there is a limit as to how much of the Senate's time we can devote to this very important issue. I hope all Senators will support the effort to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment. Even if cloture is invoked, there are several hard fought battles still to be waged on particular amendments that have been offered and that will remain germane. I believe we have reached a point where further debate should be limited to germane amendments. For that reason, I urge Senators to support the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak briefly today to recognize one of my State's greatest citizens--an extraordinary author whose contributions to the arts have made him known as the father of modern Chicano literature. Today Dr. Rudolfo Anaya will be 1 of 14 distinguished artists to receive this year's National Medal of Arts. Dr. Anaya is a legend in New Mexico and throughout the Nation for writings that reflect the cultural crossings unique to the Southwest. Born in the small town of Pastura, NM, he grew up in a Spanish-speaking home rich with tradition. His family moved to Albuquerque when he was 15, where he attended high school. His first novel, ``Bless Me, Ultima,'' was published in 1972 and won him the prestigious Premio Quinto Sol national award for Chicagno literature. This widely-acclaimed novel brought many Hispanic traditions into the limelight, creating a colorful narrative spiced with Spanish vocabulary. ``Bless Me. Ultima'' continues to be a best- selling Chicano work, and is used in classrooms throughout the world as a standard text for Chicano studies and literature courses. Dr. Anaya's work combines history and tradition with the supernatural. Old Spain and New Spain, Mexico, and Mesoamerica, all come together in a style that Newsweek has referred to as ``the new American writing.'' his second novel, ``Heart of Aztlan,'' explores a Mexican-American family's struggle with discrimination and poverty and its determination to preserve a proud sense of cultural identity. Such themes recognize a harsh reality, while also presenting the richness of Hispanic and Native American traditions and ceremonies that are so fundamental to New Mexican culture. Other works by Dr. Anaya include ``Zia Summer,'' ``Rio Grande Fall,'' ``Jalanta,'' ``Torguga,'' ``Anaya Reader'', ``Albuquerque,'' and his most recent mystery novel, ``Shaman Winter.'' He has also written numerous short stories, essays, and children's books, including ``Farolitos for Abuelo'' and ``The Farolitos of Christmas.'' Other distinguished awards include the PEN Center West Award for Fiction, the Before Columbus American Book Award, and the Excellence in the Humanities Award. Dr. Anaya is a professor emeritus of English at the University of New Mexico, where he began teaching in the summer of 1974. That same year he served on the board of Coordinating Council of Literary Magazines. Both Dr. Anaya's teaching and his work build an interest and pride in New Mexican history. His unique story-telling abilities stem from the oral tradition he experienced growing up, and his desire to pass these stories down to children make him an author, a story-teller, an educator, and a role model. As our Nation continues to explore ways to better educate our children and increase cultural awareness, we must look to role models like Dr. Anaya for guidance. His writings continue to inspire people of all ages, from all ethnic backgrounds. He has not only brought a rich tradition of story-telling and folklore to bookshelves all over the world, but he has also utilized his tremendous gift to portray the Hispanic experience. He inspires young writers to share their gifts, and he provides given millions of readers, including myself, incredible joy. The state of New Mexico is proud to be home to such an esteemed artist--one who has brought the Southwest to the forefront of American literature. I am truly honored to congratulate Dr. Anaya for all of his accomplishments for for the distinguished National Medal of Arts award that the President will present to him this afternoon in Constitution Hall. His hard work has earned him our utmost respect and admiration, I would like to thank him personally for his outstanding contributions to the arts in America.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will say a few words about where we find ourselves. I know we are in morning business, and that is appropriate for the various statements that have been made, but this is the beginning of week 6 in which the Senate is considering energy legislation. We are fast approaching a decisive point in that debate: Will we be able to bring this bill to an orderly close this week or will we not? We tried before to get a finite list of amendments agreed to, and there were objections raised by some in the Senate so we were not able to do that. We also could not get any agreement, at least as yet, on tax provisions. So the majority leader has filed for cloture on the bill, and all first-degree amendments have now been submitted. That deadline was 1:30 today. I hope we are able to deal with the remaining amendments and move forward. I hope we are able to invoke cloture so we can bring this very large legislation to an orderly conclusion. Obviously, we want to see all issues that relate and that are germane to this energy bill adequately considered, but at this point, 5 weeks into the debate and starting week 6, I think most Senators have had ample opportunity to present their amendments and raise the issues they think are of concern. I see there are other Senators seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 6 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business and that Senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.