Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have heard the discussion by the two sponsors of the amendment, Senator Kyl and Senator Miller, and, of course, now Senator Voinovich and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, who is the ranking member of the Energy Committee. I want to try to respond to some of the points that were made and put this issue in some kind of perspective as I see it. First of all, why are we even proposing this amendment? Why does my underlying amendment that Senator Kyl would propose to eliminate--why does my underlying amendment try to move us in the direction, as a country, of using more renewable energy to produce electricity? Why is that a priority for the country? I have essentially the same chart as that to which my good friend from Ohio referred. and it has the same basic information on it. This chart points out that when you look ahead--we do now depend primarily on coal. We do now depend heavily on nuclear. We do now depend heavily on natural gas. And renewables are not a major part of our energy mix, particularly the nonhydro renewables are not a major part of our energy mix. One of the purposes we have in this energy legislation--and in this particular renewable portfolio standard provision--is to diversify the sources from which we generate power, so when we get to 2020 the chart I show you in this Chamber does not look exactly like it looks now as I am pointing to it here. Today, in 2002, about 69 percent of the electricity we generate in this country is produced from coal and natural gas. If we do not adopt something such as this renewable portfolio standard, the expectation is that by 2020 it will be 80 percent produced by those two fuels. That is too much concentration. That is not smart. The Presiding Officer is familiar with investment strategies. One of the simplest, most basic investment strategies is to diversify so you are not too dependent on what happens to one particular thing. We are too dependent today on what happens to the price of natural gas. My colleague from Ohio was citing the terrible plight which many people in this country faced when natural gas prices went up 100 percent, 200 percent 18 months ago. I certainly saw that in my State. Many of the people I represent were very adversely affected. That is what we are trying to get away from with this renewable portfolio standard. We are trying to say some of this electricity that is produced in the country--some modest amount of it--I would be the first to admit that this amendment to require up to 10 percent by the year 2020 is a modest amendment. I think it is very doable. It is a movement in the right direction, but it is a modest requirement. We are saying, let's at least do that. Let's at least require utilities to do the best they can, wherever they are located, to generate some of the electricity they sell from renewable sources. So that is what we are about here. This chart I have shown before on the Senate floor. It tries to make the point that as compared to other countries, particularly in Europe-- that is what is reflected on the chart--the United States has done much less in the way of trying to generate energy from renewable sources. It shows on the chart that Spain has had a 300-percent increase from the years 1990 to 1995; Germany, over 150 percent; Denmark, nearly 150 percent; the Netherlands, over 50 percent; France, a substantial amount. The United States is the one shown on the chart with the yellow circle around it. We have been moving ahead at a very, almost imperceptible, rate. So what we are trying to do with this legislation is incentivize and require that some action be taken to move toward more production of energy from renewable sources. My friend from Arizona, in his zeal, referred to this as ``Soviet style command and control.'' This proposal, which we brought to the Senate floor, is essentially the same as President George W. Bush signed into law in Texas. We all know how sympathetic he is to Soviet style command and control. It has worked tremendously in Texas. In fact, there are all sorts of articles being written about how successful that State has been in increasing the use of renewables, and increasing the generation of power from renewables, and how the rest of the country ought to learn something from Texas. What we are trying to do here is learn something from Texas. I see the majority leader in the Chamber. If he has comments or a statement to make, I would be glad to yield to him at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I think the expectation was I would speak at this point in response. I know Senator Jeffords from Vermont has been waiting to speak, and I will allow him to go ahead at this point. Then Senator Voinovich will follow Senator Jeffords, and then I will respond after Senator Voinovich.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator from North Dakota acknowledge one reason why we are interchanging these various issues of wind power, solar power, and oil is because the Senator from Alaska has been using charts for the last 2 weeks that try to equate the two and try to make the point that we have to keep drilling more and more of Alaska in order to avoid using wind power?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not object to this procedure, although it is a little unusual. I would like a chance to respond to the Senator from Arizona at some point here. So I do not want him yielding time to various people around the floor for the whole afternoon. I am glad to have the cosponsor, Senator Miller, go ahead and speak and then, when the Senator from Arizona concludes, I will expect to speak at that point.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that would create a unique area within the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, entitled the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It would resolve, through a negotiated agreement, the Pueblo of Sandia's land claim to Sandia Moutain, an area of significant value and use to all New Mexicans. The bill would also maintain full public ownership and access to the National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness lands within the Pueblo's claim area; clear title for affected homeowners; and grant the necessary rights-of-way and easements to protect private property interests and the public's ongoing use of the Area. The need for this bill and the basis for Sandia Pueblo's claim arise from a 1748 grant to the Pueblo from a representative of the King of Spain. That grant was recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858, 11 Stat. 374). There remains, however, a dispute over the location of the eastern boundary of the Pueblo that stems from an 1859 survey of the grant. That survey fixed the eastern boundary roughly along the top of a foothill on the western slope of the mountain, rather than along the true crest of the mountain. The Pueblo has contended that the interpretation of the grant, and thus the survey and subsequent patent, are erroneous, and that the true eastern boundary is the crest of the mountain. In the early 1980's, the Pueblo approached the Department of the Interior seeking a resurvey of the grant to locate the eastern boundary of the Pueblo along the main ridge of Sandia Mountain. In December 1988, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an opinion rejecting the Pueblo's claim. The Pueblo challenged the opinion in federal district court and in 1998, the court issued on Order setting aside the 1988 opinion and remanding the matter to Interior for forther proceedings. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 94-2624, D.D.C., July 18, 1998. The Order was appealed but appellate proceedings were stayed for more than a year while a settlement was being negotiated. Ultimately, on April 4, 2000, a settlement agreement was executed between the United States, Pueblo, and the Sandia Peak Tram Company. That agreement was conditioned on congressional ratification, but remains effective until November 15, 2002. In November, 2000, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court's action was not a final appealable decision. Upon dismissal, the Department of the Interior proceeded with its reconsideration of the 1988 Solicitor's opinion in accord with the 1998 Order of the District Court. On January 19, 2001, the Solicitor issued a new opinion that concluded that the 1859 survey of the Sandia Pueblo grant was erroneous and that a resurvey should be conducted. Implementation of the opinion would therefore remove the area from its National Forest status and convey it to the Pueblo. The Department stayed the resurvey, however, until after November 15, 2002, so that there would be time for Congress to legislate the settlement and make it permanent. To state the obvious, this is a very complicated situation. The area that is the subject of the Pueblo's claim has been used by the Pueblo and its members for centuries and is of great significance to the Pueblo for traditional and cultural reasons. The Pueblo strongly desires that the wilderness character of the area continue to be preserved and its use by the Pueblo protected. Notwithstanding that interest and use, the Federal Government has administered the claim area as a unit of the National Forest system for most of the last century and over the years has issued patents for several hundred acres of land within the area to persons who had no notice of the Pueblo's claim. As a result, there are now several subdivisions within the external boundaries of the area, and although the Pueblo's lawsuit specifically disclaimed any title or interest in privately-owned lands, the residents of the subdivisions have concerns that the claim and its associated litigation have resulted in hardships by clouding titles to land. Finally, as a unit of the National forest system, the areas has great significance to the public and in particular, the people in the State of New Mexico, including the residents of the Counties of Bernalillo and Sandoval and the City of Albuquerque, who use the claim area for recreational and other purposes and who desire that the public use and natural character of the area be preserved. Because of the complexity of the situation, including the significant and overlapping interests just mentioned, Congress has not yet acted in this matter. In particular, concerns about the settlement were expressed by parties who did not participate in the final stages of the negotiations. I have worked with those parties to address their concerns while still trying to maintain the benefits secured by the parties in the Settlement Agreement. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today is a fair compromise. It provides the Pueblo specific rights and interests in the area that help to resolve its claim with finality but also, as noted earlier, maintains full public ownership and access to the National Forest system lands. In that sense, using the term ``Trust'' in the title recognizes those specific interests but does not confer the same status that exists when the Secretary of the Interior accepts title to land in trust on behalf of an Indian tribe. Most importantly, the bill I am introducing today relies on a settlement as the basis for resolving this claim. Although other approaches have been circulated, this bill is the only one with the potential to secure a consensus of the interested parties. Not only is a negotiated settlement the appropriate manner by which to resolve the Pueblo's claim, it also allows for a solution that fits the unique circumstances of this situation. To my knowledge, Sandia Pueblo's claim is the only Indian land claim that exists where the tribe may effectively recover ownership of federal land without an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the parties have negotiated a creative arrangement to address the Pueblo's interest, protect private property, and still maintain public ownership of the land. That is to be commended and I am proud to introduce this legislation to preserve the substance of that arrangement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I agree with the Senator from Alaska. We must be extremely careful in crafting language for inclusion in the gas title; poorly thought out concepts can add significant risk to this project. I suggest that we continue our cooperative efforts as we have in the past. I believe that by working together we can get this project built, and that will benefit both the people of Alaska and the entire gas consuming public across the United States.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I do recall the Senator's remarks and I am aware that there are several additional items that are being worked on at the staff level. I particularly hope we will be able to make some improvements that will assist in lowering the overall risk associated with this $20 billion project. These include enhancing the ability of the Pipeline Coordinator created in the gas pipeline title to keep the numerous Federal and State agencies that will be involved in this project working in a cooperative and coordinated fashion and providing for clear and expedited procedures for resolving legal challenges that might arise during permitting and construction of the pipeline. Streamlining the permitting process will help reduce the risks of delay and added costs to the project.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for those kind words. This is an important energy policy initiative for the nation. I thought we had a good beginning with the amendments that were offered and debated last week.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I see my colleague from Massachusetts is prepared to speak. I will defer to him.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the issue before the Senate and explain my perspective on it and hope that Senators can give their attention, those in their offices, and their staffs. This is a complex issue we are debating, the issue of reliability and how we deal with it. The underlying energy bill contains provisions that are intended to create a system to ensure that the grid for delivery of electricity is reliable. This is an issue on which, as the Senator from Wyoming indicated, we all agree. Something needs to change in Federal law to ensure that the grid is reliable. The most recent wake-up call was what happened in California when the lights went out. All of a sudden, everybody starts looking around. Who do we hold accountable? Whose job was it to keep the lights on? We have an interstate transmission system in this country. It is one which most would acknowledge is not adequate for future demands. For that reason, we are trying to ensure that the proper safeguards and mechanisms are in place to keep this system reliable. Up until now, the reliability of the transmission system has been up to a private organization. There is no Federal responsibility for it. You could call the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over and have a hearing in front of the Energy Committee. He could say: You haven't given us that job. You, the Congress, have not given us, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the job of keeping this system reliable. That belongs to NERC, which is the North American Electric Reliability Council. They are the ones responsible. Everybody, the industry included, realizes that is not adequate for today's demands. We need to have some governmental accountability in addition to the expertise that NERC and other organizations can bring to the system. The reliability system needs to apply to all users. The rules need to be enforceable. There need to be penalties if you do not comply with the rules. Someone has to be able to slap your wrist and say: Get in line and do what everyone has agreed to do. Nobody disagrees with the conclusion that FERC should have oversight of the system that contains these requirements. There are differences, however, about how these principles should be implemented. I believe the provisions in the bill before us, S. 517, take the simplest approach possible. That is what we have tried to do. We give FERC the responsibility. We provide tremendous flexibility for FERC to defer to experts, to defer to regional entities, to defer to private groups to implement the obligation. But when push comes to shove, FERC has the responsibility to be sure this system is reliable so when the lights go out, we have someone to hold accountable. The Western Governors' Association has proposed an amendment--the Senator from Wyoming has now offered that amendment--that would take a far more cumbersome and complicated approach to accomplishing these goals. The proposal would create a tangle of procedural red tape that could tie up attempts to make certain the grid is reliable. For that reason, I have to oppose the amendment. The Thomas amendment would require FERC to create a reliability structure that first creates a national electric reliability organization to be approved by FERC. Clearly, there are such organizations. We have NERC, which I referred to a few minutes ago, that exists. That should continue. But to put this requirement in law takes away flexibility. The amendment allows creation of regional reliability entities. It creates a rebuttable presumption that the standard set by any such regional entity, on an interconnection-wide basis, should be accepted by FERC. That is a concern I will get into in more detail. The amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that standards offered by an interconnection-wide entity are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. It writes that into the law. It allows FERC only to remand to an electricity reliability organization or to regional entity rules that it determines are not just and reasonable. It creates a complaint process that is very cumbersome and would take months, if not years, to finally result in a compliance award. The structure is complex. It is largely unworkable as proposed. If someone is acting in a way that the national reliability experts think endangers the stability of the delivery system, those experts should not have to go through a cumbersome process in order to remedy the problem. These problems in the reliability of the system are extremely time sensitive. And you can't set up a maze of procedural requirements that have to be maneuvered before a remedy can be found. Only in one part of the country is there any likelihood that an interconnection-wide entity can be created, and that is the West, beyond the Rocky Mountains. Let me put up a map of the country. As I indicated, the amendment the Senator is proposing is being offered by Governors from the western part of the country--his Governor, my Governor from New Mexico, who--I don't know the extent to which he is focused on what he is proposing here. The only interconnection-wide entity that is likely to exist and meet these requirements--or get the provisions under here is in the West, this large pink area here. The reliability structure, in my view, needs to be simple and dependable. We should require that FERC implement a system, give them guidelines and flexibility to confer with experts, flexibility to defer to regional bodies. That is what we do in the underlying bill. We should not create a system that is too complicated and causes the reliability of our electric system to remain in question. Let me take this down and just go through more of a detailed explanation of what I understand this proposal to be. This amendment that the Senator from Wyoming is offering would add a new section, No. 215, to the Federal Power Act. Just a second here. Let me jump ahead. The provision the Senator from Wyoming is proposing contains a provision that is as a result of an attempt by NERC to reach a consensus among industry participants about what needs to be done about reliability. This process has been going on many years now. About 4 years ago, they came up with a 30-page document purporting to represent the agreement of a broad range of industry participants. The proposal was renegotiated several times over the course of the years, often with key constituencies dropping out of that consensus as they went forward. The most recent iteration--the one we are considering here--was a result of discussions last fall. At the conclusion of those discussions, very few of the original consentees--if that is a good word--remained on board. The Electric Power Supply Association and the Association of Marketers and Independent Power Producers oppose this new version--the version now being offered as an amendment. The Electric Institute--which is, of course, central in issues related to electricity--was unable to endorse the proposal because they had opposition from several of their members. The Western Governors' Association has proposed language and that is what we have before us. Let me try to summarize their proposal. Their proposal gives the Commission jurisdiction within the U.S. over an electric reliability organization and any regional entities and all users, owners, and operators for the bulk power system for the purpose of improving reliability and enforcing reliability standards. The FERC must issue a rule within 180 days of enactment of this law, if it is enacted. FERC must certify an applicant, if it determines it has the ability to develop and enforce reliability standards, and that the applicant has rules that assure its independence of users, owners, and operators while assuring fair stakeholder representation of directors in balanced decisionmaking in any committee. Compliance with standards is mandatory. So the electric reliability organization must file proposed standards or modifications with FERC. This is under the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. Instead of FERC issuing them, the electric reliability organization would file the proposed standards of modification with FERC. FERC may approve them if it determines that the standards are just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. FERC must give due weight to the technical expertise of the electric reliability organization but shall not defer with respect to a standard's effect on competition. The electric reliability organization and FERC must rebuttably presume--and that is in the statute. I know our Presiding Officer is very familiar with presumptions in the law and rebuttal presumptions in the law, and here there is a rebuttable presumption that a proposal for a standard or a modification that comes from a regional entity that is organized on an interconnection-wide basis is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. Let me go to the map again. As to that provision that says there is a rebuttable presumption, a rebuttable presumption that any proposal for a standard or modification that comes from a regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis is just and reasonable, where do we have a regional entity organized on an interconnection-wide basis? One place: California, in the West. The rest of the country doesn't benefit from that so-called rebuttable presumption. If FERC cannot approve a standard, it must remand the standard to the electric reliability organization. FERC may order the electric reliability organization to propose a different standard or a modification. The electric reliability organization may impose a penalty on a user of the system that violates a standard. After notice and the opportunity for hearing, filing with the Commission, the FERC may order compliance or a penalty. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must establish rules authorizing the electric reliability organization to delegates its authority to a regional entity. All of this is in the amendment the Senator from Wyoming is proposing. This goes on and on. Let me try to summarize this by putting up a chart or two and try to explain to the Senate how this would work, as I understand it. Let me start with ``Standard Proposal.'' It really should have been entitled, ``How Do You Propose a Reliability Standard?'' What is the process for proposing a reliability standard? FERC has a responsibility and jurisdiction to establish an electric reliability organization. That is what they do here. So the ERO, electric reliability organization, under the Senator's amendment, would be established. Now, the ERO can delegate its authority to a regional entity for standard proposals and enforcement. That is this box over here, which says ``delegated regional entity.'' Remember that the regional entity is organized on an interconnection-wide basis. Then that is when the rebuttable presumption comes in. So if you are in the western part of the country, then there is the rebuttable presumption that comes in that the regional entity should be approved. There is only one region in the country where this interconnection-wide deference is applicable, and that is the West. The rest of the country doesn't benefit. There are three interconnections: The 14 Western States that are in the Western Electric Coordinating Council; ERCOT, Electric Reliability Council of Texas; and then there is the rest of the country. Currently, there are eight regional reliability councils besides these two--the one in the West and the one in Texas. They are all in the eastern interconnection. It is a near certainty that these eight entities will not be able to organize into an interconnection-wide regional body so that the rest of the country does not receive, under this amendment, the same deference as the West would receive. As a consequence, there will be different structures for reliability compliance and enforcement in different parts of the country. Perhaps the most disturbing detail of the proposal is that any entity that is organized on an interconnection-wide basis must be assumed to be functional just because it is organized on an interconnection-wide basis. We are saying if you are organized on an interconnection-wide basis, shown in pink on this map of the country, then you have the presumption that you are a functional organization. In the rest of the country, a regional entity must prove it is up to the task before there can be any delegation of authority to it. In the West, and perhaps in Texas, it would work the other way around. The Commission and the national reliability organization on which we will be depending to keep the lights on, to keep the electricity operating, must prove that any regional entity is not adequate, instead of requiring the entity to prove it is adequate. Reliability, in my view, is more important than that, and we need to require that all parts of the structure in all parts of the country demonstrate competence to shoulder this heavy responsibility. There is no reason we should write into law presumptions that any particular organization, which we do not yet even have established in some cases, knows what they are doing. How are standards proposed? Let me go through this chart as best I can. If the electric reliability organization, the ERO, that has been set up by FERC, wants to propose a standard, it needs to file that with FERC. The Commission has the choice: It can approve the standard or, if it does not find it is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, it can remand the proposal back to the electric reliability organization. It has two options: It can approve it or remand it. If the electric reliability organization has delegated its authority to a regional entity, the proposal will then be remanded to the regional entity instead of FERC. If the regional entity does not accept the proposal, it may resubmit it to the electric reliability organization, and the electric reliability organization then resubmits it to FERC. It would go up to a delegated regional entity, over to the electric reliability organization, and then to FERC. Remember, there is a rebuttable presumption for both the electric reliability organization and for FERC that any proposal from a regional entity that is organized on an interconnection-wide basis is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. We have these rebuttable presumptions to which everyone is obligated to defer. The consequence of this rebuttable presumption/remand circle is that a regional entity that wanted to prevent a change in a standard could tie up the decision for virtually forever. The important rule that governs reliability of the transmission system could circle through this system pretty much indefinitely, with nobody ever able to come to a final decision. These are time-sensitive decisions. We are trying to keep the lights on. These are not the kinds of decisions that should be allowed to bog down in this maze. Let me change charts and put up a different chart. This is one that is called FERC Proposed Modification. Again, I am trying to describe the amendment as I understand it, and if I am wrong about how this amendment works, then I invite my colleagues who are proposing the amendment to explain why I am wrong. This is called FERC Proposed Modification. If FERC believes it needs to propose a change, it can order the electric reliability organization to submit the modification. We have an order going from FERC to the electric reliability organization. Then the electric reliability organization submits the modification to FERC and the circle starts again. There are rebuttal presumptions in here. There are remands going around in this chart as well. Neither the electric reliability organization nor FERC is empowered under this amendment, as I read it, to bring this to a conclusion. Let me go to one other chart. This is a chart on how complaints are to be handled under the system that is being proposed in this amendment. If the electric reliability organization receives a complaint that someone has failed to comply with a rule--and that is obviously what this whole system is intended to deal with--it may, after notice of hearing--that is shown on the chart as: Does the electric reliability organization want to act? The complaint is filed. If they want to act, they have to give notice, have a hearing, and propose a penalty. They do not have authority under this amendment--and I underline this--they do not have authority to issue a compliance order. They cannot say: Do this. All they can do is penalize for failing to comply, and they can impose a penalty. The penalty is then submitted to FERC, which reviews it and may modify, affirm, or set aside the electric reliability organization's action. That is, they have that authority unless the electric reliability organization has already delegated its authority to a regional entity. If there is a regional entity with a delegated enforcement authority, then they have first dibs at dealing with this issue. If the regional entity disagrees with the electric reliability organization, it may not have the authority to file an enforcement action with FERC. But that action needs to be filed by the regional entity, so that the electric reliability organization is essentially displaced from its authority and the authority then has to be exercised by the regional entity at that point. Whether the electric reliability organization then files with FERC--exactly what happens in that circumstance is not very clear. This may seem confusing. To me it is confusing. I have heard other bills over the course of the time in the Senate referred to as the lawyer's full employment act of 19 whatever. This is the Lawyer's Full Employment Act of 2002, particularly the Utility Lawyer's Full Employment Act of 2002. I hope that if a participant in a market is acting in some manner that is not in compliance with reliability rules, some action can be taken to change that behavior quickly. That is in everyone's interest. That is what we were trying to do when we proposed language to essentially say, OK, FERC, you are responsible for being sure the reliability is guaranteed in the system. With this structure that is proposed in this amendment, the complaint has come to the ERO, to this electric reliability organization. They have to have time for notice. They have to have a hearing. They, then, can impose a penalty. They cannot issue a compliance order. Then their proposal needs to be filed with FERC for further review and further action. So the real question is, Will the lights still be on? Will the electricity still be flowing? How long does this take before a compliance order can be issued to stop the action that is threatening the reliability of the system? Is it going to take weeks? Is it going to take months? Is it going to take years? This amendment requires FERC to establish regional advisory councils on the petition of at least two-thirds of the States in the region. This is a good idea. This is a part of the amendment I think is a good idea. I am not sure as much process needs to be specified as the amendment does, but the general idea is one that I certainly support. If this were the amendment being offered, we would gladly accept that amendment. I think, though, the amendment that is offered and the way it is worded gives most States less deference than the language in our bill does. Our bill would allow FERC to defer to NERC, to defer to a regional council, to a similar organization, or to a State regulatory authority. In other words, if States create a regional advisory council, FERC clearly can defer to that under the legislation that we proposed. The language we have before us in this amendment would allow FERC to defer only to a regional advisory body if it is organized on an interconnection-wide basis. So, again, we have this map. I will put the map up again to reiterate the point. This amendment was put together by the Western Governors' Association. I understand that. That is the part of the country in which I live. I know that is the part of the country in which my colleagues who are proposing the amendment live. But in each case, the preference under the amendment goes to this part of the country. The deference goes to another part of the country. I do not really think that is the right way to make national policy. I think we ought to have a uniform national policy. The whole idea is to set up a system that will work everywhere. I will summarize my objections. I know my colleague from Oregon is anxious to speak in favor of the amendment. I will summarize some of my other views, and then I will defer to him. In general, the proposal of the Western Governors' Association specifies matters that I believe are better left to experts to sort out. The proposal we have in the bill would allow FERC to approve a reliability organization that fits this description to defer to regional entities or to the electric reliability organization, but it does not require it. Our language does not contain all of these rebuttable presumptions. When I first read through this, I thought to myself: Why in the world are we putting in all these rebuttable presumptions? A rebuttable presumption is essentially a burden of proof, a standard of proof, that is put in in order to be in a position that later on someone can review that, when it is appealed, to see whether the standard was met, whether or not the burden of proof was met. I shudder to think of the number of appeals that will be taken from decisions by one or another of these entities on the basis that the presumption, which we are being asked to write into law, was not adequately rebutted. I do not really know why we see it in our interest, why it would be in the national interest, for us to write into law all sorts of rebuttable presumptions which then complicate the situation and invite appeal from whatever decision is made. We have some real interest in seeing some finality brought to these decisions if we are going to have a reliable system. I think the requirement that FERC only be able to remand standards that it finds not to be just and reasonable eliminates flexibility that FERC may well need to have. This interconnection-wide presumption essentially says, if one happens to be in this pink area of the country, they are in this interconnection-wide area, and therefore all these rebuttable presumptions apply. And what they say gets particular deference. I do not, quite frankly, understand, and we are still trying to educate people on this amendment, but I cannot understand why Governors of these other States--there are a lot of States that are not in this pink area. I do not know why Governors in these other States and commissioners in these other States would support this proposal. It gives them far fewer rights than the Governors and the commissioners in the West have. So I have some concerns about it. I will mention one other concern, and then I will defer to my colleague, who is anxious to speak. As chairman of the Energy Committee, we have had several hearings so far this last year where we bring in the FERC Commissioners and we basically try to cross-examine them and ask them why they have not done this and why they have not done that and why they are not living up to their responsibilities in this regard. We had a bunch of those hearings when the lights were going out in California. If we pass this amendment, my firm belief is next time the lights go out somewhere, and we bring those Commissioners before the committee and say, now, why were you not carrying out your responsibility, they have a ready answer. Their answer will be: We were carrying out our responsibility. You told us our responsibility was to presume these folks knew what they were doing, and we have been presuming it, and now it turns out they did not know what they were doing. So do not criticize us. You are putting the responsibility somewhere else. You told us there is a rebuttable presumption that they know exactly what they are doing and they can handle all of this. So we were trying to get out of that. We were trying to say: Look, let us fix responsibility in the hands of a group that the President appoints and that we confirm and then encourage them to delegate that as they say fit, but not give them the out of saying they are not responsible; that it was someone else's job and it was not theirs. I very much fear this amendment, if adopted, will give them a very convenient out. We will then be having long, complicated hearings going through charts about whose rebuttable presumption was met and whose rebuttable presumption was rebutted, and that is not going to be good for the country. It is not going to keep the electricity going. It is not going to keep the lights on. For those reasons, I urge that my colleagues oppose the amendment and keep the bill as it is, which is much simpler, which is much more straightforward and which does not get into all kinds of complexities which will be contrary to our national interest. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will say a few words about the various amendments we are considering this afternoon. I proposed an amendment to the underlying bill which does modify the provisions we had related to this issue of a renewable portfolio standard, and that is the pending first-degree amendment, and essentially that calls for us trying to increase the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources over the next 18 years, between now and the year 2020, up to 10 percent. That is what we have proposed in the amendment I sent to the desk. Senator Jeffords has sent a second-degree amendment to the desk, and he has asked that we change that goal and requirement, and that instead of going to 10 percent of power having to be generated from renewable sources, it should be 20 percent. He has made his statement in support of that, and he has indicated a desire to come back and reiterate those points before we actually cast a vote on his amendment. Then there is also, as I understand it, expected to be an amendment by Senator Kyl from Arizona which will essentially eliminate any kind of a Federal program or requirement to increase the amount of renewable energy that utilities generate. So those are the three main issues before us. Obviously my position, which is I think is clear to all my colleagues, is that the 10-percent goal we have in the bill and in the substitute I have sent to the desk is an appropriate goal. It is something we can achieve. It makes sense. It moves us, as a country, in the direction we ought to be going. It reduces our dependence on fossil fuels in very important ways. There are some obvious reasons why I think it is important we act on this as part of a national energy bill. When one looks at a comprehensive energy bill, which we are now debating, there are various things that can be done. The supply can be increased, and we are trying to increase the supply of energy from our traditional sources, from oil and gas, from coal, from nuclear, from hydroelectric power. All of those are existing sources of energy upon which we believe we are going to remain dependent. They should continue to flourish. We support that and we have provisions in the bill that support them. I firmly believe it is also important we put a particular emphasis on renewable power, renewable energy sources. It is important we do that to get a diverse set of sources. It is important we do that because the renewable energy sources do not produce emissions. They are extremely benign to the environment and there are substantial benefits in job creation, quite frankly, from putting a heavier emphasis here. I will put up a couple of charts I referred to earlier in the debate so people can be reminded this is where we produce electricity today. This is ``Electricity Generation by Fuel.'' There seems to be a lot of information on this chart, but it is pretty clear what the big points are. The first big point is, this is from the period 1970 to the year 2020. So over this 50-year period, it shows that by far the biggest contributor to electric generation today is coal. It has been all along. It continues to be, it is going to be in the future--that is a given--and we have provisions in this bill to encourage additional research to try to find ways to continue using coal in the most environmentally benign way possible. Down beneath that we have nuclear. This is as of the year 2000 in this period. The next line is nuclear. Nuclear accounts for something in the range of 20 percent of the power we produce today in this country. It will continue to account for a substantial portion of the power we produce for the indefinite future, even if there are no nuclear powerplants built, and there may well be. I do not know the answer to that. The other fuel, which is now third as far as the contributors to electrical generation, is natural gas. That is this green line. Although it is third now, we can see that it is growing dramatically as a contributor to electricity generation in this country. We are now in a situation where today 69 percent of the electricity we generate in this country comes from two fuels: coal and natural gas. That is going to change by the year 2020, unless we enact legislation in the nature of this renewable portfolio standard that I have proposed. The way that is going to change is we are going to be much more dependent upon those two fuels, coal and natural gas, by the year 2020 than we are today. Instead of 69 percent, which is where it is today, it will be up to 80 percent. So we will be 80-percent dependent upon those two types of fuel. Why is this a problem, some might ask. Who cares? It is a problem because price spikes, particularly in natural gas, can play havoc with people's electric bills, can play havoc with our ability to maintain a stable market for electricity in the country. Eighteen months ago, it was $10 per million Btu of natural gas. Today it is more like two-fifty. There is a tremendous volatility in those prices, and that is what we are setting ourselves up for if we do not diversify the sources of fuel upon which we rely. We do have real concerns about the adequacy of our supply of natural gas as we go forward to the year 2020. We may well be buying a larger and larger percentage of our natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas that is brought in by tanker from overseas. This is being brought in from the Middle East, from a lot of countries that we do not currently consider particularly stable suppliers. Just as we are currently dependent upon foreign sources of oil, we can see the day, possibly in the future, when we will be substantially dependent upon foreign sources of natural gas. A lot of that dependence will be because we have not diversified the sources of power to generate electricity. Also, of course, if one thinks climate change is a problem, which many people do, it is important we try to find some sources of energy that do not contribute to that problem, and that is exactly what we are trying to do with this renewable portfolio standard. Another one of these charts I think makes the point we have a lot of opportunity to do better in this area. This chart is entitled ``The Commitment to Renewable Generation.'' This is the period 1990 to 1995. The point it makes is, over on the left-hand side, this is the percentage increase in nonhydro renewable generation during that 5-year period, 1990 to 1995. Spain increased their nonhydro renewable generation over 300 percent during those 5 years; Germany increased theirs something around 170, 180 percent; Denmark, nearly 150 percent; Netherlands, about 70 percent; France, something in the range of 30 percent; and then there is the United States. We can see from this chart there was hardly any increase during that 5-year period, in nonhydro renewable generation in the United States. Frankly, we have a lot of opportunity to catch up with some of the European nations in producing more power from renewable sources. In my State of New Mexico, I asked why we did not have wind power. I have seen the charts that say New Mexico is a natural source of wind power. We have a lot of wind, particularly this time of year. I found there was very little renewable power generated in my State. I asked if we had any U.S. manufacturers of wind turbines come and put up wind power, and I found out the major manufacturers of wind turbines are in Europe, not in this country. The main market for wind turbines is in Europe, not here. We may want to do in New Mexico what the neighboring State of Texas has done. We have a love-hate relationship between New Mexico and Texas; it grates on me to say that Texas did something right, but the reality is they have done something right in this area. Frankly, President Bush did something right in this area when he was Governor of Texas. He signed a law to put in place a renewable portfolio standard that was very much the same in its provisions as we propose as a national program. They have moved ahead very dramatically in adding generation capacity based on renewable energy. It is the kind of action I wish we had taken in New Mexico. I hope we do it in the near future. I know our major utility in New Mexico is considering putting in a wind farm. They realize it is cost effective. It does make sense. They have seen the successes our neighboring State has had. Let me show another chart entitled ``U.S. Renewable Electricity Consumption.'' This points out that today 3\1/2\ to 4 percent of the electricity that we consume is generated from renewable sources-- nonhydro renewable sources. Under this bill, under the renewable portfolio standard we are proposing--not the one Senator Jeffords is proposing; that is more ambitious, but the one I am proposing--we would increase that between now and 2020 up to around 12 to 13 percent. That is the expectation under this bill. The green area on the chart is what will be added as renewable generation if this bill is passed with the renewable portfolio standard in it. Absent the renewable portfolio, if the Kyl amendment succeeds and we eliminate any national renewable portfolio standard, the expectation is we would have this orange strip that we are now at, with 3\1/2\ percent of our generation coming from nonhydro renewables; that would be the same in 2020. We would still be producing about 3\1/2\ percent from nonhydro renewables. I think there is a very strong case to be made that a forward- looking, comprehensive effort to diversify sources of energy, to deal with global climate change in a responsible way, to ensure we are diversifying our sources and producing all the power we need in the future, would lead us to conclude we ought to have this modest requirement. This is a modest requirement. This is not excessive. There are many people who advocate renewable generation and are critical of what I have proposed as a renewable portfolio standard because they think it is insufficient. They think we should be doing more. I would love to see more. I think this is a realistic proposal given the reality we face today. My proposal is there for anyone to study and review. I think it would be very good public policy for the country. I have some letters I call to my colleagues' attention. One is from the American Wind Energy Association, dated March 13. While we believe that all of America's renewable energy technologies--wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower--are capable of contributing higher levels of electricity generation than would be required by the proposed RPS, the provision is a significant step forward in meeting America's growing energy needs. In 2001 alone the wind energy industry installed close to 1,700 megawatts of new generating capacity, enough to meet the needs of about 475,000 households. More than half of this new wind power development (915 megawatts) was produced in Texas--a state with the most effective renewable energy requirement law in the nation. In addition to producing electricity without emitting any pollutants, each megawatt of wind power creates at least $1 million in economic activity. Obviously, I would like to see some of that economic activity in my State. I assume the Presiding Officer would like to see some in his. That would occur as part of the implementation of this. I also refer to a letter from MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, which is headquartered in Omaha, NE. The Presiding Officer is familiar with that company. This is a letter to me from David Sokol, chairman and chief executive officer. Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am pleased to write in support of your efforts to include provisions to promote the development of renewable energy resources for electric generation in the Senate's comprehensive energy bill. MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company is one of the world's largest developers of renewable energy, including geothermal, wind, biomass and solar. MidAmerican has been a long-time proponent of both a production tax credit for electricity generated by renewables and a federal government purchase standard for renewable electricity. We strongly support these provisions in the comprehensive energy bill before the Senate, as well as recent modifications to the bill's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) section that will ensure that implementation of the RPS is achievable and affordable. Renewable electricity can play a critical role in diversifying the nation's fuel mix and providing emissions- free electricity for American consumers. By including both supply and demand side components in the comprehensive energy package, your legislation will benefit the environment and American energy security. Thank you again for your leadership in promoting renewable energy. I have one other letter from the American Bioenergy Association. This group is headquartered in Washington. There are various members of the group who have signed the letter to me, dated March 13. Dear Senator Bingaman: We, the undersigned members of the American Bioenergy Association (ABA)--the leading industry group representing biofuels, biomass power, and bioproducts-- are writing to thank you for your support to date and to encourage you to offer an amendment for a renewable portfolio standard that is both aggressive and realistic. It is critical that we level the playing field for renewable energy generation. State RPS programs have met with enormous success. A federal RPS would allow clean energy developers and their customers to use biomass power in all regions of the country where it is technically feasible. The ABA believes that the biomass industry provide a significant contribution to the standard you will offer as a substitute amendment to the Daschle bill. This RPS uses the already over-subscribed Texas legislation as a model. The national policy you propose would allow all renewable energy resources to be developed where they are most applicable. I have one other brief issued by the National Hydropower Association. It says: The National Hydropower Association writes to strongly urge you to support the Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Majority Leader Tom Daschle's compromise amendment to S. 517 on the Renewable Portfolio Standard. They go on to explain why they believe that is very much in the interests of the Nation. Finally, there is a letter I have here from Michael Wilson, vice president of the Florida Power & Light. He says in a letter to me dated March 14: Please consider this letter an endorsement of the compromise Renewable Portfolio Standard contained in S. 517, the Energy Policy Bill. As you may know, FPL Group, comprised of the two major subsidiaries-- He lists what those are-- is one of America's cleanest, most progressive energy companies. Our commitment to the environment is manifested. . . . He goes on and on and indicates they are intending to add 2000 megawatts of new wind generation over the next 2 years and that this renewable portfolio standard will allow wind generation to contribute to America's energy independence and security. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, for the information of my colleague, I am not familiar with the Collins amendments. But I do know of Senator Jeffords' intent to offer an amendment, and I did know of Senator Kyl's intent to offer an amendment. I will be glad to consult with my colleague about any additional amendments that would be offered. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment I am offering is a substitute amendment for the provision that is in the bill at the current time related to renewable portfolio standards. I am offering it today to ensure we establish a clear policy statement of our need as a nation to diversify our power generation sector. This amendment establishes a renewable portfolio standard for the electricity sector. This is the corollary, as I see it, to the renewable fuel standard that we have heard so many laudatory statements about yesterday. This amendment will ensure that all retail sellers of electricity have a portion of their generation--produce a portion of their generation from renewable resources. The amendment is modeled after the very successful Texas program that President Bush implemented when he was Governor of Texas. The basic outline is as follows. All retail sellers with annual sales greater than a million megawatt hours will be required to contract for and secure a certain amount of generation annually from eligible renewable resources. Most co-ops and municipals would be exempt. Beginning January 2005, 2 years after the date of enactment, retail suppliers will be required to include a minimum of 1 percent of renewables in their electricity sales. The percentage would increase annually by .6 percent until 2020. There are several adjustments to the calculation based on existing renewables. A retailer can subtract from its sales base all existing generation from renewable generation resources, including hydro. The renewable resources include solar, wind, ocean, biomass, landfill gas, geothermal, generation offsets from renewables that are ``net metered'' at a customer's facility, and generation from incremental hydropower improvements and incremental generation from repowering or cofiring. For new renewables placed in service after the date of enactment, the retailer will get one credit per kilowatt hour generated; 2 credits for net metered offsets; and 2 credits for grid-connected renewables on Indian land. Retailers can apply the credits to their own obligations, or they can sell the credits. Existing nonhydro renewables, including municipal solid waste, can be used to offset a retail provider's own annual obligation, but they could not be used for credit trading. To facilitate the ramp-up of the program, retailers can start to accrue credits from the date of enactment, which they can bank to use within the next 5 years. The first year of the program, the retailer may borrow against expected generation to be installed within the next 3 years. The price cap of the lesser of 3 cents per kilowatt hour or 200 percent of the average market value of credits for the previous year is contained in the bill. This is not a guarantee for any renewable generator. This is not a new version of PURPA. Every renewable developer will have to compete in the marketplace. There will be no bureaucrats dictating prices. I think this would be a major step forward in ensuring that we do develop a diverse set of sources from which we can generate power in this country. I commend to my colleagues the reports on the experience they have had in Texas, in particular, since we have modeled this proposal closely after what was approved in Texas. I think it is an excellent proposal. I hope very much at the conclusion of our deliberations on this renewable portfolio issue, this amendment can be adopted. I understand my colleague from Vermont is here and has a second- degree amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement entered into, we reserved 10 minutes--5 for myself, 5 for Senator Thomas--and I think the protocol is that since Senator Thomas has the amendment, he would want his 5 minutes last. I will go ahead with my statement at this point and urge people not to support the Thomas amendment. Let me, once again, make the large points that need to be made. I will put up the map of the country again. These are the electricity regions that are all over the country. This largest one, by far, of course, is in the western part of the country and contains 14 States. The amendment before us, which Senator Thomas offered, is an amendment that the Western Governors' Association has put together, which, as I see it, does several things. First, it dramatically complicates the process by which we try to ensure that the system for transmitting power around this country is reliable. Let me put up another chart that tries to make that point. I will not go through every detail of it. I will try to make the point that if a complaint is filed and it is indicated that some utility is not abiding by the standards that need to be abided by in order to ensure the reliability of the system, and it is not doing what is required, then under Senator Thomas's amendment you have a very complex procedure that could, in fact, take place, where the electric reliability organization that is called for in his amendment decides it wants to take action, and before it can, it is required to give notice, have a hearing. If it decides to take action, all it is permitted to do is impose a penalty. It cannot compel compliance or issue an order compelling compliance, as FERC can. This electric reliability organization is also required to approve regional entities and delegate enforcement authority to them; and there are presumptions written into this that say, just in the western part of the country, just in this area here in the pink, there are rebuttable presumptions that anything they do is right--that FERC has one set of standards that apply to the rest of the country, but in this area there are rebuttable presumptions that what is done is accurate. In my view, this complicates matters. It is an inconsistent set of rules. It is not an appropriate set of national rules. It is not fair, quite frankly, to the rest of the country. I come from a State that is in this area, so perhaps I should be on the other side of this issue. But this is not good national policy. In my view, it is not fair to a lot of the other States. We have letters I have put into the Record already to indicate that various of the regional transmission organizations are upset about this inconsistent treatment. Quite frankly, the complexity of this amendment undercuts any meaningful accountability in the system. We have been trying to ensure that someone can be held accountable when the lights go out, when the electricity quits flowing. You have to know whom to call to say they have fallen down on the job: it was your responsibility to do this, and you have fallen down on the job. Under this amendment, it is going to be really tough to tell whom you ought to call because the electric reliability organization might be the right one, or the regional entity might be, or FERC might have some authority. Quite frankly, we can see the time down the road when we can wind up with a hearing in the Energy Committee, the lights will have gone out somewhere in the country, power will have failed, and we will call in the FERC Commissioners and say: What is the problem? Why were you not doing your job? They will say: We were doing our job. Under the statute you passed, you told us to presume these people knew what they were doing. It was a rebuttable presumption. We took you at your word. It turns out they didn't know what they were doing. I think the proposal we have in the underlying bill is far preferable, much simpler. It puts accountability right at FERC and gives FERC flexibility to continue to defer to the industry organization, continue to defer to regional organizations, as they determine appropriate. I urge people to oppose the Thomas amendment on those grounds.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may propound a unanimous consent request before my colleague from Illinois continues with his comments, I ask unanimous consent, since we have a vote at 2 o'clock on the Thomas amendment, that at 1:50 we reserve 10 minutes equally divided between Senator Thomas and myself where he can explain his amendment, and I can explain the arguments against it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will have other comments to make later in the debate, but at this point I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that would create a unique area within the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, entitled the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It would resolve, through a negotiated agreement, the Pueblo of Sandia's land claim to Sandia Moutain, an area of significant value and use to all New Mexicans. The bill would also maintain full public ownership and access to the National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness lands within the Pueblo's claim area; clear title for affected homeowners; and grant the necessary rights-of-way and easements to protect private property interests and the public's ongoing use of the Area. The need for this bill and the basis for Sandia Pueblo's claim arise from a 1748 grant to the Pueblo from a representative of the King of Spain. That grant was recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858, 11 Stat. 374). There remains, however, a dispute over the location of the eastern boundary of the Pueblo that stems from an 1859 survey of the grant. That survey fixed the eastern boundary roughly along the top of a foothill on the western slope of the mountain, rather than along the true crest of the mountain. The Pueblo has contended that the interpretation of the grant, and thus the survey and subsequent patent, are erroneous, and that the true eastern boundary is the crest of the mountain. In the early 1980's, the Pueblo approached the Department of the Interior seeking a resurvey of the grant to locate the eastern boundary of the Pueblo along the main ridge of Sandia Mountain. In December 1988, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an opinion rejecting the Pueblo's claim. The Pueblo challenged the opinion in federal district court and in 1998, the court issued on Order setting aside the 1988 opinion and remanding the matter to Interior for forther proceedings. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 94-2624, D.D.C., July 18, 1998. The Order was appealed but appellate proceedings were stayed for more than a year while a settlement was being negotiated. Ultimately, on April 4, 2000, a settlement agreement was executed between the United States, Pueblo, and the Sandia Peak Tram Company. That agreement was conditioned on congressional ratification, but remains effective until November 15, 2002. In November, 2000, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court's action was not a final appealable decision. Upon dismissal, the Department of the Interior proceeded with its reconsideration of the 1988 Solicitor's opinion in accord with the 1998 Order of the District Court. On January 19, 2001, the Solicitor issued a new opinion that concluded that the 1859 survey of the Sandia Pueblo grant was erroneous and that a resurvey should be conducted. Implementation of the opinion would therefore remove the area from its National Forest status and convey it to the Pueblo. The Department stayed the resurvey, however, until after November 15, 2002, so that there would be time for Congress to legislate the settlement and make it permanent. To state the obvious, this is a very complicated situation. The area that is the subject of the Pueblo's claim has been used by the Pueblo and its members for centuries and is of great significance to the Pueblo for traditional and cultural reasons. The Pueblo strongly desires that the wilderness character of the area continue to be preserved and its use by the Pueblo protected. Notwithstanding that interest and use, the Federal Government has administered the claim area as a unit of the National Forest system for most of the last century and over the years has issued patents for several hundred acres of land within the area to persons who had no notice of the Pueblo's claim. As a result, there are now several subdivisions within the external boundaries of the area, and although the Pueblo's lawsuit specifically disclaimed any title or interest in privately-owned lands, the residents of the subdivisions have concerns that the claim and its associated litigation have resulted in hardships by clouding titles to land. Finally, as a unit of the National forest system, the areas has great significance to the public and in particular, the people in the State of New Mexico, including the residents of the Counties of Bernalillo and Sandoval and the City of Albuquerque, who use the claim area for recreational and other purposes and who desire that the public use and natural character of the area be preserved. Because of the complexity of the situation, including the significant and overlapping interests just mentioned, Congress has not yet acted in this matter. In particular, concerns about the settlement were expressed by parties who did not participate in the final stages of the negotiations. I have worked with those parties to address their concerns while still trying to maintain the benefits secured by the parties in the Settlement Agreement. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today is a fair compromise. It provides the Pueblo specific rights and interests in the area that help to resolve its claim with finality but also, as noted earlier, maintains full public ownership and access to the National Forest system lands. In that sense, using the term ``Trust'' in the title recognizes those specific interests but does not confer the same status that exists when the Secretary of the Interior accepts title to land in trust on behalf of an Indian tribe. Most importantly, the bill I am introducing today relies on a settlement as the basis for resolving this claim. Although other approaches have been circulated, this bill is the only one with the potential to secure a consensus of the interested parties. Not only is a negotiated settlement the appropriate manner by which to resolve the Pueblo's claim, it also allows for a solution that fits the unique circumstances of this situation. To my knowledge, Sandia Pueblo's claim is the only Indian land claim that exists where the tribe may effectively recover ownership of federal land without an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the parties have negotiated a creative arrangement to address the Pueblo's interest, protect private property, and still maintain public ownership of the land. That is to be commended and I am proud to introduce this legislation to preserve the substance of that arrangement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that would create a unique area within the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico, entitled the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It would resolve, through a negotiated agreement, the Pueblo of Sandia's land claim to Sandia Moutain, an area of significant value and use to all New Mexicans. The bill would also maintain full public ownership and access to the National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness lands within the Pueblo's claim area; clear title for affected homeowners; and grant the necessary rights-of-way and easements to protect private property interests and the public's ongoing use of the Area. The need for this bill and the basis for Sandia Pueblo's claim arise from a 1748 grant to the Pueblo from a representative of the King of Spain. That grant was recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858, 11 Stat. 374). There remains, however, a dispute over the location of the eastern boundary of the Pueblo that stems from an 1859 survey of the grant. That survey fixed the eastern boundary roughly along the top of a foothill on the western slope of the mountain, rather than along the true crest of the mountain. The Pueblo has contended that the interpretation of the grant, and thus the survey and subsequent patent, are erroneous, and that the true eastern boundary is the crest of the mountain. In the early 1980's, the Pueblo approached the Department of the Interior seeking a resurvey of the grant to locate the eastern boundary of the Pueblo along the main ridge of Sandia Mountain. In December 1988, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an opinion rejecting the Pueblo's claim. The Pueblo challenged the opinion in federal district court and in 1998, the court issued on Order setting aside the 1988 opinion and remanding the matter to Interior for forther proceedings. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 94-2624, D.D.C., July 18, 1998. The Order was appealed but appellate proceedings were stayed for more than a year while a settlement was being negotiated. Ultimately, on April 4, 2000, a settlement agreement was executed between the United States, Pueblo, and the Sandia Peak Tram Company. That agreement was conditioned on congressional ratification, but remains effective until November 15, 2002. In November, 2000, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the District Court's action was not a final appealable decision. Upon dismissal, the Department of the Interior proceeded with its reconsideration of the 1988 Solicitor's opinion in accord with the 1998 Order of the District Court. On January 19, 2001, the Solicitor issued a new opinion that concluded that the 1859 survey of the Sandia Pueblo grant was erroneous and that a resurvey should be conducted. Implementation of the opinion would therefore remove the area from its National Forest status and convey it to the Pueblo. The Department stayed the resurvey, however, until after November 15, 2002, so that there would be time for Congress to legislate the settlement and make it permanent. To state the obvious, this is a very complicated situation. The area that is the subject of the Pueblo's claim has been used by the Pueblo and its members for centuries and is of great significance to the Pueblo for traditional and cultural reasons. The Pueblo strongly desires that the wilderness character of the area continue to be preserved and its use by the Pueblo protected. Notwithstanding that interest and use, the Federal Government has administered the claim area as a unit of the National Forest system for most of the last century and over the years has issued patents for several hundred acres of land within the area to persons who had no notice of the Pueblo's claim. As a result, there are now several subdivisions within the external boundaries of the area, and although the Pueblo's lawsuit specifically disclaimed any title or interest in privately-owned lands, the residents of the subdivisions have concerns that the claim and its associated litigation have resulted in hardships by clouding titles to land. Finally, as a unit of the National forest system, the areas has great significance to the public and in particular, the people in the State of New Mexico, including the residents of the Counties of Bernalillo and Sandoval and the City of Albuquerque, who use the claim area for recreational and other purposes and who desire that the public use and natural character of the area be preserved. Because of the complexity of the situation, including the significant and overlapping interests just mentioned, Congress has not yet acted in this matter. In particular, concerns about the settlement were expressed by parties who did not participate in the final stages of the negotiations. I have worked with those parties to address their concerns while still trying to maintain the benefits secured by the parties in the Settlement Agreement. I believe the legislation that I have introduced today is a fair compromise. It provides the Pueblo specific rights and interests in the area that help to resolve its claim with finality but also, as noted earlier, maintains full public ownership and access to the National Forest system lands. In that sense, using the term ``Trust'' in the title recognizes those specific interests but does not confer the same status that exists when the Secretary of the Interior accepts title to land in trust on behalf of an Indian tribe. Most importantly, the bill I am introducing today relies on a settlement as the basis for resolving this claim. Although other approaches have been circulated, this bill is the only one with the potential to secure a consensus of the interested parties. Not only is a negotiated settlement the appropriate manner by which to resolve the Pueblo's claim, it also allows for a solution that fits the unique circumstances of this situation. To my knowledge, Sandia Pueblo's claim is the only Indian land claim that exists where the tribe may effectively recover ownership of federal land without an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the parties have negotiated a creative arrangement to address the Pueblo's interest, protect private property, and still maintain public ownership of the land. That is to be commended and I am proud to introduce this legislation to preserve the substance of that arrangement.