Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague to yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as follows: Senator Obama, 15 minutes from the time of Senator Dorgan; Senator Brownback, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's time; Senator Coleman, 15 minutes from Senator Grassley's time; Senator Corzine, 10 minutes from Senator Dorgan's time; and Senator Burr, for 10 minutes from Senator Grassley's time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of Dexter in the Pecos Valley of southeastern New Mexico, who will soon be celebrating the centennial of their community. In its early years, the settlement that would become Dexter was located near the large body of water known as Lake Van in Chaves County. With the rise of the railroad and the construction of an irrigation canal a few miles away, a new town was necessary. Three men selected the townsite, and the only married man of the bunch, Albert Macey, was given the privilege of choosing the name of the town. He chose the name Dexter in honor of his hometown of Dexter, IA. Dexter served an important role as a railroad depot in its early years. The depot contributed greatly to the economic and social life of the town. Dexter also became part of the historic Ozark Trails highway system and still has remnants of this fabled roadway, now known as State Highway Two. Agriculture, with cotton and alfalfa being the chief crops, has been and continues to be important for Dexter and the Pecos Valley. These days, Dexter is also known for its fish hatchery, where advanced biological research takes place and endangered species are protected and propagated. The Dexter National Fish Hatchery is currently working with 17 species of fish native to New Mexico and neighboring States. If something should happen to devastate an original fish species in the wild, the hatchery could use the fish it holds in refuge to help replace the damaged population. Given the long history of settlement in New Mexico, turning 100 barely qualifies a town as middle aged. But Dexter and its 1,200 residents have done a great deal in that short amount of time. I congratulate the town of Dexter on its centennial and offer my best wishes for the next 100 years.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize Albuquerque Vocational Technical Institute (TVI), a community college in New Mexico that is celebrating its 40th year of service to the community. Since TVI's humble beginnings in an old vacated school building serving only 150 students, the school has made a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of students and has grown to serve about 27,000 students each year across four campuses. Considering the enriching education and workforce opportunities TVI provides it is no surprise that TVI is a ``crown jewel'' of the city of Albuquerque. In a community noted for cultural diversity, TVI is a model technical education institution which provides high quality instruction and training in a variety of technical careers, trades, and professions. TVI delivers innovative, customized training and skill development to develop a highly skilled workforce for business, professional organizations, and government agencies. TVI wisely collaborates with business and industry to ensure that their students, as future workers, meet the demands of the high-tech 21 century workforce. TVI graduates provide needed technical assistance and services to a variety of industries including our National Labs. TVI's dedication to their students' professional growth has positively impacted the economic development of the community and of the State. For its leadership in educational advancement and for its invaluable contributions, I commend the students, the teachers, and the administration of the Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute for 40 years of exceptional service to the community and to the State of New Mexico.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on May 24, 1999, the Bureau of Indian Affairs produced an agreement regarding the funding formula for the two BIA postsecondary schools Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, known as SIPI, and Haskell Indian Nations University. SIPI and Haskell agreed that while base funding for each institution would not be impacted, all new funds would be proportionately distributed to each school based on unmet student need. In accordance with the agreement, BIA developed a formula for unmet need. In the conference report to Public Law 106-113, the Interior Appropriations bill, Congress then directed BIA to allocate funds for SIPI and Haskell for fiscal year 2000 as determined by such formula. Since then, however, BIA has not used the formula agreed upon by all parties, but should have, as Congress directed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask if the chair and ranking member would work with me, should funding become available, to find $178,730 in conference for SIPI, which is the amount of funds I believe is needed to correct this situation for the period that the formula should have been used according to Congressional direction, up to and including fiscal year 2006.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, my amendment provides more opportunities for Youth Conservation Corps to partner with the land management agencies funded through this bill. In addition, according to agency information, it would save the taxpayers money. For decades, we have included a provision in this bill requiring the land management agencies to carry out some of their projects in partnership with the Youth Conservation Corps. In the mid-1970s, we funded the YCC program at $60 million each year. Unfortunately, Congress has more or less forgotten the YCC for the last 5 years, which is how long it has been since we increased the modest setaside for the programs to about $7 million. YCC projects range from building trails and campsites, to restoring watersheds and monuments, to eradicating exotic pests and weeds. The Youth Corps bring to the agencies enthusiastic young adults that are ready to work hard to improve our public lands. The youth corps members come away with a good job and invaluable experiences. In New Mexico, for example, the Rocky Mountain Youth Corps has partnered with all of these agencies to carry our many projects over the years. One project was to create a scenic lakeside trail with an interpretive nature component in the Carson National Forest. Recently, the site was listed as one of the top 15 camping sites in New Mexico, and the lakeside trail is an integral component of that camping experience. We held a hearing on the YCC program in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources a few years ago, and the Park Service Director testified that his agency received $1.70 in benefits for every $1.00 it invested in YCC projects. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it received $2.00 dollars for every $1.00 it invested. Supporting this program is good fiscal policy. My amendment would provide a modest increase of almost $2 million in the YCC setaside, to be spread among the four agencies. This does little more than prevent the program from shrinking from where it was 5 years ago, but it would result in tangible benefits to our youth, our public lands, and our budget. This amendment is good education policy, good public lands policy, good economic policy, good government policy, and good fiscal policy. I am gratified that this amendment was adopted. Amendment No. 1050

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the time. I want to speak briefly in support of the Sununu amendment. This amendment is simple. It is narrow. It is clear. It provides that none of the funds appropriated in the bill can be used to plan or construct new logging roads for private logging companies in the Tongass. Some would say: Why single out the Tongass? How does that relate to my State or the area of the country I represent? I think we have to have a little context for this amendment. We are debating an extremely tight budget for the Forest Service, one that simply does not come close to meeting the needs of the National Forest System. That is the reality that is being brought on by the growing deficits and the resulting cuts in spending. Let me give a few examples of the cuts that are found elsewhere in this bill. This bill cuts the State and Private Forestry account by $87 million. That includes a 45-percent cut in critical funding to protect communities from wildfires, leaving volunteer fire departments and other responders underfunded and leading to greater risk to life and property. This is made worse by a $353 million cut in the Federal Wildfire Management account. It also includes a 30-percent cut in the Forest Health Management account. A program that rehabilitates and restores areas burned by wildfires is cut in this budget by 84 percent. The bill cuts more than $180 million from the Capital Improvements and Maintenance accounts, which fund the road construction and maintenance in the Tongass and in the rest of the country. That account already is more than $10 billion in the red. So that gives people some sense of the extreme cuts that are taking place elsewhere in the Forest Service budget. In stark contrast to that are the accounts used to support logging in the Tongass National Forest. Rejecting the President's proposed cuts in those accounts, this bill would increase funding for logging programs in the Tongass. It takes money from the programs throughout the rest of the country and puts it into the logging program in the Tongass. That is why it is important that this amendment pass. We need to be sure that taxpayer dollars are going where the most good can be done for the public. It is no wonder that Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Taxpayer Waste, and many other organizations and businesses have objected to this program and the funding that is being provided. In February of this year, the Congressional Budget Office joined in and proposed eliminating the Forest Service timber sales in Alaska and elsewhere as a way to save taxpayers $130 million in 2006. Mr. President, I believe this is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will support Senator Sununu and me on this. The Federal deficit clearly is too high. It cuts critical programs in our States too deep. Taxpayer money is too precious for us to spend it in this way. This amendment would help correct that problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Drake Bailey, an intern in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor today.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill before us is not perfect. It does not go as far I would have liked, or others may have liked, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to improve our automobile fuel efficiency, or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But it makes a good start. The bill puts the Senate on record, for the first time, as saying that global warming is a problem and that we need to take serious action to address it. The bill stops short of taking those actions itself, but it acknowledges the problem, and that is an important--indeed essential--step in the right direction. The bill also takes major steps toward increasing the amount of energy we use to make our electricity and to fuel our cars and trucks from renewable energy sources. It promotes the development and deployment of new energy technologies, improves energy efficiency, and modernizes our electricity laws. It was a good bill coming out of committee and it has been made better on the floor. Much of the credit for the bill goes to Chairman Domenici for the fair, open, and bipartisan process he used to draft the bill and shepherd it through the committee and on the floor. Not all issues were resolved the way he would have liked or I would have liked, but he let the committee and the Senate work their will. It has resulted in a good bill. Special thanks must also go to the committee staff, both majority and minority, who put in long hours and hard work on the bill over the last several months. Everyone on the Democratic staff of the committee contributed to this effort: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Patty Beneke, Tara Billingsley, Jonathan Black, David Brooks, Michael Carr, Mike Connor, Deborah Estes, Amanda Goldman, Leon Lowery, Jennifer Michael, Scott Miller, Sreela Nandi, Dominic Saavedra, Al Stayman, Vicki Thorne, Bill Wicker and Mark Wilson. I especially wish to thank our Democratic staff director, Bob Simon. I would also like to single out Jonathan Epstein and James Dennis on my personal staff for their contributions to the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the constant and valuable help given to us by the Democratic cloakroom staff and the staff of the Democratic Leader. Our task now will be to keep our bipartisan bill from being undermined in conference. Twice before the Senate has sent an energy bill to conference, only to see it die in conference or on the floor. But I am confident that the third try is the charm. Again, I commend Senator Domenici for his leadership and bipartisan approach to this effort. I think we have come up with a bill which should enjoy good bipartisan support here on the Senate floor. There are obviously some provisions I wish were in the bill that are not. But I think we are going into conference with a good piece of legislation. I hope we are successful in persuading the House to agree with us on that. I do think we still have many hurdles to overcome, as we have learned from previous Congresses, but I am optimistic that this time we will succeed in completing action on an energy bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his willingness to let me speak for a few minutes. I join him in urging that we go ahead and invoke cloture on the bill. I do believe we have had a good debate on the Senate floor. We have had a good opportunity for amendments to be offered. The process has been open. I have supported some amendments that have been offered to the bill; I have opposed others. I note my colleague has done the same. I believe each Senator has done the same. That is exactly how the Senate is intended to operate. Obviously, there are Senators who still have amendments they would like to offer. Some of those amendments will be germane after the cloture vote occurs even if cloture is invoked. Those amendments can be considered by the Senate and disposed of at that time. That is appropriate. But I understand the scheduling problems the majority leader has and the Democratic leader has as well. They believe they need to move to other legislation early next week, or even as early as tomorrow. Therefore, they would like to go ahead and conclude work on this bill. This bill is not coming to the Senate sort of ab initio, as they teach you in law school. It has come here after we had a substantial debate on these very same issues two Congresses ago, and again last Congress. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out, we had a very thorough and open process in the committee. This process we have had on the floor has been a thorough and open process as well. I believe the bill that came out of committee was a good product. It was a substantial improvement over current law. And I said that. I believe it has been further improved as we have been working here on the Senate floor in considering amendments to the bill, so I do not doubt it could be improved even more. Some of the amendments which Members may still want to offer may well improve it more, and I may be a strong supporter of those. But clearly this has been a process that I think has given everyone an opportunity to participate and offer amendments. It has been a process that has led to a good product which we can take to conference with the House of Representatives. As I say, there will be additional opportunities, even if cloture is invoked, for us to further improve this bill with germane amendments. So I will support cloture. I know each Senator can make his or her own mind up about that vote, but I believe the chairman of our committee has worked diligently to get us to this point. I have tried to work with him in that process. I think the majority leader and the Democratic leader are very focused on trying to get conclusion on this legislation. I support their efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. It would dedicate funding for coastal impact assistance to States that currently produce oil and gas from the Federal OCS adjacent to State waters. I have visited the coastal area near Louisiana with Senator Landrieu. I know of the very serious concerns which many in that State have about the loss of coastal wetlands caused by a variety of factors, including some activities related to the oil and gas development that has occurred there. Senator Landrieu has been a tireless advocate for her State on this issue and I know her colleague has as well. It is important for my colleagues to know what the amendment does not do. The amendment does not modify any moratorium on OCS leasing. It does not provide an incentive for States to start production. It does not provide for a State opt-in or opt-out for resource assessment or leasing activities. What the amendment does is establish a coastal impact assistance program and provide a stream of revenues for coastal impact assistance to States that already have OCS production off their coast. Under the amendment, funding would be made available to address the loss of coastal wetlands as well as for other projects and activities for the conservation, protection, and restoration of coastal areas, mitigation of damage for fish and wildlife and other natural resources, and implementation of federally approved marine coastal and conservation management plans. In addition, up to a fixed percentage of the funding could be used for mitigation of the impact of OCS activities through funding of infrastructure projects. In other words, the amendment allows funding of certain infrastructure projects and public services, but the amount of funds that can be expended for those purposes is capped. Before concluding, let me clarify one significant point. I support the amendment because it does provide dedicated funds from the Treasury for coastal impact assistance. The amendment does not provide a percentage of revenues or future revenues or otherwise call for revenuesharing from the Outer Continental Shelf. I have stated repeatedly my opposition to that idea. It is my view that the oil and gas resources in the OCS belong to the entire Nation, and the revenue- sharing arrangement, which was earlier discussed but is not part of this amendment, would run contrary to that principle. In closing, I reiterate my support for this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting aye for the amendment and waiving the Budget Act, if necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, it is my understanding there are other Members who have asked to be given a chance to speak, some in opposition to the amendment, perhaps some additional in favor. So we are not able to go to a vote at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak also in opposition to the Feinstein amendment. Federal jurisdiction over the siting of import and export terminals is constitutional, it is appropriate, it is a necessary part of this energy bill, in my view, and of any rational national energy policy. Obviously, as the Senator from Tennessee was just pointing out, an adequate natural gas supply is extremely important to our Nation's economy. The regulation of foreign commerce, such as import and export terminals for LNG, is a Federal role under our Constitution. The States have a legitimate interest, an interest in protecting their environment and the health and safety of their citizens. But the Feinstein amendment is not necessary because State participation authority in the LNG siting process is already very robust. For us to add another provision of law that says after the NEPA process is completed a Governor can come in and veto the siting of an LNG facility would be bad policy. In my view, the amendment being offered ignores the current State authority and turns the process on its head. Today, for both offshore and onshore LNG proposals, State agencies with environmental expertise and related permitting authority are active participants in the NEPA process. Furthermore, an applicant must obtain all of the required State and local permits before that applicant can construct and operate an LNG terminal. The bill which we have reported out of the committee does not take away any existing State authorities related to the LNG siting process. And the key Federal statutes that provide States permitting authority-- those statutes are explicitly protected in our committee bill. It strikes a balance between Federal and State interests. The Deepwater Port Act Gubernatorial veto, which has been referred to by the Senator from California, is not a good model for us to follow in this legislation. It was enacted in 1974 to provide a process for siting deepwater oil ports. The Governors' veto authority in the Deepwater Port Act has never been utilized. We are not certain why, but I would argue it is an artifact from a time when the environmental statutes that States currently can use were very new and were untested. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, of 1969, was just in its infancy in 1974. The NEPA process has evolved since the 1970s to require a thorough and wide-ranging public review of the environmental impacts of Federal actions and a consideration of alternatives to the proposed actions. Many other environmental statutes--the Coastal Zone Management Act mentioned by the Senator from Tennessee, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Air Act--were also enacted in the early 1970s. These Federal statutes delegate significant permitting authority to the States. The Feinstein amendment is not workable as it is currently drafted. It allows the Governor to veto a proposed terminal after the entire NEPA process has been completed and a final environmental impact statement has been issued. Yet the amendment does not require the Governor or the relevant State agencies to participate in that same NEPA process. This is a process that can take up to a year to complete. It is a process that is designed to involve all interested parties and to identify all of the significant environmental and safety issues that need to be resolved. The amendment also allows the Governor to require the FERC to impose conditions on the LNG project to make it consistent with State environmental laws. But the veto and the consistency provisions in the Feinstein amendment duplicate authorities the States already have under other laws. The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that an applicant seeking a Federal permit to construct an LNG terminal in a coastal area prove to the State that the activity will be consistent with the State's coastal laws. If the State denies the consistency determination, the Federal permit cannot be issued. This effectively vetoes the project. There is a limited right of appeal to the Secretary of Commerce. The Clean Water Act requires that an applicant obtain from the State a section 401 certification that the facility will comply with the act, including the State's water quality standards. Denial of this certification effectively vetoes the project as the only appeal that is provided for is to the State courts. The committee bill does not take away any of these powers, nor does it affect the State and local laws that require project developers to obtain dozens of permits for LNG facilities. I ask my colleagues: Why do we need to add this additional authority? It will discourage States from engaging in the NEPA process for a project that is in its early stages, when alternative sites can be identified and safety measures can be required. Indeed, the prospect of the Governor waiting to interject himself and the State at a later point in the project after the environmental impact statement is done will discourage industry from developing the LNG terminals that the country will need in the future. Let me mention one other fact. I know the Senator from Rhode Island was talking about problems. He mentioned the KeySpan project in his State. FERC currently is actively engaged in assuring that these facilities are sited in safe locations. The Energy Daily, on May 23, had an article in it with the headline ``FERC Staff Flunks Rhode Island LNG Facility on Safety.'' In this article they point out that ``the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff, in a final environmental impact analysis, said Friday that a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal project in Rhode Island would flunk Federal safety standards with inadequate earthquake protection and an insufficient fire buffer.'' Then the article goes on to say: . . . it is highly unlikely that FERC would vote to approve the project over the findings of the final [environmental impact statement] which said rather bluntly: ``KeySpan's LNG's proposed LNG import terminal would not meet current LNG safety standards . . . [and] KeySpan LNG has not provided any data to show that the proposed import terminal can be brought into compliance with the current safety standards.'' I cite that to make the point that FERC is doing its job. They are not trying to put facilities or permit facilities at locations that are unsafe. They are taking into account the concerns of the local community and the concerns of the States. They are flunking applications where those concerns are valid. We have tried to protect the rights of States and local communities in this legislation. I believe we have done that. I urge that we not adopt the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I believe myself, Senator Domenici, and perhaps Senator Specter wish to speak on my amendment. I hesitate to limit it to 10 minutes if that is what the Senator is suggesting. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me restate the request. Senators Specter and Allard would like to speak. I ask unanimous consent they be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Following that, the Senator from Oklahoma and I would have time equally divided on the modified Bingaman amendment, numbered 866, and a vote would occur in relation to that amendment at 5:30, with no amendments in order.

Mr. BINGAMAN. This is not a queue. This is a queue of one. We are just trying to get in a position to act on this amendment.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could we have the unanimous consent request put to the Senate again.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me restate it for Senators who might not have heard it before: We recognize Senator Specter to speak for up to 10 minutes. We recognize Senator Allard to speak for up to 10 minutes. The remainder of the time, between now and 5:30, would be equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and myself in relation to the modified amendment that I have offered, amendment No. 866. There would be a vote at 5:30 on or in relation to amendment No. 866, as modified.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me restate the request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes; Senator Allard from Colorado be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes; and following that, I be recognized to present my amendment No. 866 and a modification of that amendment; that the time between then and 5:40 be equally split between myself and the Senator from Oklahoma; and that we would then have a vote at 5:40.