John Breaux

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee. Although we differ on the conclusion, I certainly have the utmost respect for the good work he has done in bringing this bill to the floor, along with the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, in an effort to try to develop something we do not have in this country and that we desperately need, and that is an energy policy that is good for America. The energy policy we have--or probably do not have--is probably good for OPEC but it is not good for America. Why do I say it is good for OPEC? Because the facts are that we import about 57 to 58 percent of the oil we use in this country. It comes not from America, not from allies in Canada, or good friends in Mexico, but about 58 percent of the oil and gas we use in this country for everything we need, from agriculture to cars and trucks to our residences being heated in the winter and cooled in the summer--that 58 percent of the oil and gas we need for all those services which are critically important to the United States and every citizen of this country does not come from America. It comes from countries where, if people in this country did what they did in their country, they would go to the penitentiary. What am I talking about? Every few weeks people in OPEC, the sheiks and the people who control the energy in those countries, meet in fancy resort hotels around the world, they meet in secret, and they determine how much they are going to price the oil that America has to buy. They regularly and openly fix prices. If companies that are providers in this country did that in America, they would go to the penitentiary. That is clear. It is illegal. Yet we as a nation have accepted that policy on the part of the principal supplier of oil for our country. We do not control our destiny; we do not control our future, as long as we rely on people who fix prices to provide this country with the ingredients we need to be a strong and secure and prosperous nation. That has to come to an end. It is not going to be easy. There is not one answer. There is a multitude of answers which we have to incorporate in an energy bill which is balanced, which provides help and assistance for new forms of energy, for alternate forms of energy. I voted for $6 billion worth of tax incentives for new forms of energy. Many people in Louisiana think it is ludicrous that I am doing that. When I talk about wind power and chicken manure being converted into energy, people in my State say: What are you doing? Why don't you try to encourage oil and gas production? I say: Yes, that is important, but alternative sources of energy are also important. The point I make about where we get our energy supplies is just this simple. If we were dependent for, say--think about it--58 percent of the food we eat in this country, suppose it came from a foreign source which was not very dependable. People would be marching in the streets in Washington, saying you have to stop that policy. It is insane. We can't depend on foreign countries for our food. It is essential to our national security. You cannot allow a policy which gets agricultural products from countries on which we cannot depend. People would march in the streets--and rightfully so. That is exactly what we do when it comes to energy. We are satisfied. We are fat, we are happy, until they turn the faucet off just a little bit. It happened in 1973 and it brought this country to our knees. We had long lines at filling stations. We had lack of supplies. We had people getting in fights trying to buy gasoline so they could take their children to the doctor and to school and run commerce in this country. We saw what they could do. At that time we were probably 30- percent dependent on imported oil. Today it is about 58 percent. We look around the world and the circumstances today are much worse than they were in the 1970s. There has been an attempted coup in Venezuela, which is one of our largest suppliers. The President of that country is in bed with Castro and Libya and Iraq, and we are dependent on them for much of the energy supply in America. Purchase of it comes from Louisiana where we refine it in Lake Charles. Is that a secure source? Of course not. They just had a revolution. The guy they kicked out is back. He is not particularly a friend of the United States when he is giving oil to Cuba at discounted prices and threatens to cut it off to us at any moment. Getting oil from Iraq, is that a stable source? The Middle East situation today is as volatile as it has been in generations. So the point I would make to start this discussion is we, in these United States, have to be more reasonable, more balanced in how we approach the solution. There is no absolute, safe method of achieving energy independence that doesn't have some risk. Let's admit that up front. That is, of course, true. But we have a policy in this country when it comes to oil and gas. Think about it. You could not drill offshore anywhere on the east coast, from Maine to Key West. It is all locked in--or, rather, locked out from any development, although there are potential reserves in those areas that are substantial. If you look on the west coast of this country, you can go all the way from Washington State down the west coast, all the way down to Mexico and you cannot have any new leasing in any of those areas whatsoever. We did that because Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, have taken all those areas and said: Don't do it here. Not in my backyard. The problem is the backyard is the entire west coast of the United States. Don't do it in my backyard on the east coast. The problem is it is the entire east coast of America. Some have said, and some of the environmental groups have said, ``Do it off Louisiana,'' as if we were not important from their perspective, and as if we didn't have some of the most valuable resources in terms of wetlands, fin fish, birds, oysters, shrimp, and all of the fur- bearing animals that we have in the very fragile wetlands where we lose 25 square miles a year because of erosion. But they are saying: Do it there. We are doing it there. We will continue to do it there because we believe this is a national issue and we should make our contribution towards energy security. We have done it for 60 years off our coast and on our shores. There have been mistakes. There have been problems, but we have learned from those mistakes. And today it is much more secure than bringing oil in rusty-bucket ships that leak and spill oil on the oceans of this country. Less than 2 percent of the oil that finds its way into the oceans of America and the world come from offshore development. Most of it comes in tanker discharge, industrial runoff, and other sources, and natural seepage, but not from offshore production activities--less than 2 percent, according to the National Academy of Sciences. I think we have shown it can be done safely and in a fashion that protects the environment. There is no place I would rather fish in America than the Gulf of Mexico. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of platforms that have wells, exploration wells, and production wells that produce natural gas and oil for the rest of this country. We have a pipeline system that takes natural gas and sends it to Chicago, New York, New England, or to the west coast, and all over this country, coming from one particular source in the gulf where there is a 60-year record of it being done safely. Despite that, when we tried to have additional leasing in the gulf, Congress tried to stop that even. President Clinton, to his credit, proposed a compromise called lease sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. To my regret, the Bush administration cut that by two-thirds. It was a proposed lease sale that was two- thirds less than President Clinton had proposed in the Gulf of Mexico. And this Congress tried to eliminate it completely because they did not want it in their backyard. From where is it going to come? From where is it going to come, if not from a domestic source right here in this country where we have shown we can do it safely, in a secure fashion, and in an environmentally sensitive fashion? I think there are many parts of the country that are doing their share. The concept that because it is a wildlife refuge and somehow we are not supposed to be able to do anything on it other than look at caribou is ridiculous. Here are the wildlife management and wetland management districts around the country where we have production already. There are 9 facilities in Texas and 12 in Louisiana. Every single wildlife refuge in Louisiana--which has some of the best in the world, the best in the country, and which has more wildlife features and more fragile ecology than the North Slope--12 separate production facilities on wildlife refuges, one of them owned by the Audubon Society, which has production on their own refuge from which they get royalties, strongly support it, but nowhere else. I think it has been shown that, in fact, you can have production, if it is done properly and in a sensitive fashion--and in wildlife refuges, as well as in areas that are not. It can be done. It has been done and it has been done safely. This is an example of the type of facility in Louisiana. Look at how small of a print that is. In Alaska, there are 19 million acres in ANWR. When we are talking about reserving a portion of that 19 million acres, which is less than the size of Dulles Airport, to do one type of operation, of course, it makes an imprint. Is it huge? Of course not. Is it dangerous? Of course not. Can it be done safely? The answer is yes. History has shown us that it can be done in an environmentally safe fashion. We would not need that, if we were not importing 58 percent of our oil from countries that are not safe and not reliable. If we had enough energy production from other sources, then we would not need to do it in the wetlands because we would have more than we needed right here in this country. But that is not the case when we are importing 58 percent from places that fix prices and which have us literally over a barrel when it comes to having enough energy to run the cars, to run industry, and agricultural entities in this country. We can't afford not to look at developing it here in this country. That is the point I would make. There are some who say we will have a problem with the caribou up there. Caribou aren't endangered. They are like a bunch of cows. There are more of them now than there were years before. In addition to that, we are not damaging the lifestyle of caribou by having some energy development in the same area they happen to be walking through once or twice a year. Some say: You can't do anything up there because of the caribou. They have nice pictures of caribou. They say: Don't do anything to damage the caribou. The caribou are more plentiful in that part of the country than they were in Prudhoe Bay. They are doing quite well, thank you very much. For those who said, ``Well, you are going to interfere with their lifestyle,'' look at this photograph. These are not dummies that somebody put out on the North Slope. The Senator from Alaska knows that area quite well. It is his State. These are living, breathing, multiplying caribou within a stone's throw of a production facility in Alaska. Does this look like the caribou lifestyle is being interfered with? Does it look as if they are not happy and content, grazing near the pipeline and production facility? Some will make the argument you can't do it because the caribou walk across this area twice a year, they might calve, and it might disrupt their lifestyle. Importing 58 percent of our energy is disrupting the lifestyle of Americans, and it is threatening the security of the United States. We don't want to get into another Afghanistan or have the Middle East shut off the oil supply to this country or ask how we are going to defend ourselves and be protectors of the world when we are buying oil from people who have turned against us because of conflicts with Islamic portions of this world. We have to be secure. We have to be confident that we can depend on energy. We ought to do whatever is necessary to produce it in this country instead of bending over on our knees saying, please, OPEC, don't disrupt our energy supplies; please, OPEC, don't charge us too much; please, please, please. You can't say that when you don't have someone to back it up. What are we going to do? Threaten not to buy their oil? We do not have that luxury because we are not doing enough to produce energy right here in America. For those people who say, ``Don't drill in ANWR,'' get off the caribou argument. They made that argument about the Prudhoe Bay pipeline; it was going to kill all of the caribou; they will move somewhere else; they weren't going to have calves. That has not proven to be correct by one iota. The caribou are there and they are thriving. That simply, in my opinion, is not a legitimate argument as to what we should be looking at. We should be looking at it from the standpoint of safety and making sure it has the utmost of environmental equipment that is needed to make sure it can be done safely. I would suggest that it doesn't matter how we protect it. It is a lot safer than importing energy that we are bringing in by tankers from around the world. Some have said that in order to get this measure passed we have to sweeten the pot for some of the steelworkers who lost their jobs. I am not for that. That is not what the issue should be. Some have said maybe our friends in the Middle East and the Israelis will help and maybe we can get enough votes to pass this measure. It should pass on its own. I would vote for trying to get something good from the standpoint of energy security. It should pass or fail on its own merits. We ought to be able to look and decide whether it is a good idea. When I was back in the House in the 1970s, we wrote the Alaska Lands Act. We looked at this area. We set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with 19 million acres with the clear thought that we ought to take a small portion of it and look to see whether we could possibly do more for energy. The USGS tells us that it equals a 30-year supply of oil coming from Saudi Arabia. Some say there isn't much up there. We will not know until we take a look. The USGS tells us that it is potentially a 30-year supply--the equivalent of what we get from Saudi Arabia. That is not insignificant. That is a huge amount. Some say it is a 1-day supply. It is 1 day if we cut off all other sources. If you look at it from the standpoint of potentially how much is there, a 30-year potential is very significant considering what we get from Saudi Arabia. We may not get this thing done. We may continue to say: Don't do it in my backyard; don't do it on the east coast, don't do it on the west coast, don't do it in the Gulf of Mexico, don't do it--don't, don't. But my point is simply this: If not there, where? For somebody who thinks it is better to import it from the Middle East rather than produce it in our country with our own people running the program and with our environmental laws in effect, I suggest that is not a good tradeoff. This amendment should pass. We should go about the business of bringing energy security to this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BREAUX. From a selfish standpoint, I could say: Don't do it anywhere else. Just do it in Louisiana. It creates jobs. It creates income. And it creates infrastructure. We are happy to support that activity. If I looked at it from only a parochial standpoint, I would say: Only do it in the Gulf of Mexico. Don't do it anywhere else. But that is not in the best interest of the country. You have to do it in the gulf, but you have to do it in other places where oil may be present. One of the most promising and potentially the largest supplies, other than the Gulf of Mexico, is, in fact, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So if you look at it as national policy, it is not enough that Louisiana and Texas do it. Other States have to be involved; and ANWR is one of those sites. We cannot keep saying ``don't do it here'' and ``don't do it there'' and ``don't, don't, don't.'' The fact is, we ought to do it where we can find available energy. I would say ANWR is one of those.

Mr. BREAUX. That is it. It is easy to say: Don't do it in my own backyard. I want to be with environmentalists. And that is fine, but at some point you have to say: We have to have a balanced program. I talked to some environmentalists about ANWR, and I said: I tell you what, what if we limit it to 1 acre? Would you be satisfied if we only did it on 1 acre in Alaska? The answer was: No. The fact is, they don't want to do it on 1 acre or 20 acres. They just don't want to do it because it becomes a symbol of what they stand for. And I understand that. But we are in a crisis in this country. I am saying you have to have a balanced approach. This is what has occurred around natural gas, the cleanest burning fuel, the least threatening in this country. People don't like nuclear because it is dangerous. Natural gas is dangerous. They don't like coal because it is dirty. Natural gas is the cleanest fuel we have. Look at what has happened. As I show you this on the map I have in the Chamber, this area is subject to no restrictions. You cannot drill for potentially 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the west coast because it is all blocked off. There are 31 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas reserves on the east coast. You cannot drill a well anywhere there. There is lease sale 181, which we just fought in this Congress, where people want to say: Don't do anything here. There are 24 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas reserves, and Florida is importing over 90 percent of the gas they use from other sources. They do not produce but a trickle of their gas in Florida. They import over 90 percent, and they say: Don't do it off my pretty beaches. Don't do it off my million-dollar houses. Go do it somewhere else. There isn't anyplace else. The only place we are doing it is shown here on the map. So look at the interior of the country. We have more places where you can't look for oil and gas than you have where oil and gas potential exists.

Mr. BREAUX. Sure.

Mr. BREAUX. I just say, referring to the map, the access restrictions I am talking about on the coast clearly are a total prohibition. And this is a total prohibition. This has restrictions on access to those areas. For some of these areas, it should be. But what we are talking about today is not access restrictions to ANWR; we are talking about a total prohibition on ANWR. That is not access restrictions. That is a lot further. If we want to pass a bill that says we are going to carefully coordinate how you can get into that area, how you can exit that area, what you can do in that area, that is one thing; but the legislation we have in the current law of this country is: no access. That is not access restrictions; that is totally no access to areas that have potentially huge amounts of energy. Again, I would say, don't do ANWR if we don't need it. But anytime this country is importing 58 percent of our energy, I would suggest we need it. Are we importing 58 percent of our energy because we like to do that? Of course not. We are over a barrel paying OPEC prices, which they fix every 6 weeks. I think, if we are going to have a national energy policy, everybody has to come to the table, not just half of the equation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, the demand for natural gas is expected to increase tremendously in this country over the next 15 years. By some accounts demand for natural gas will go from approximately 23 trillion cubic feet in 2000 to over 31 trillion cubic feet by 2015, a 34 percent increase. The existing natural gas transmission infrastructure simply cannot accommodate this increased demand. Natural gas offers an environmentally friendly and secure source of energy, and we must ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to meet this increased demand. Otherwise, we could suffer adverse environmental consequences and undermine the potential for economic growth, which depends upon safe and secure sources of energy. Natural gas also has the added advantage of reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, which in today's environment, is a major advantage. The Senate Finance committee took several steps to address this issue. Improving the depreciation period for natural gas distribution lines and clarifying that natural gas gathering lines are seven-year property is a step in the right direction. However, I am concerned that the bill we are now considering, as well as the House-passed energy legislation, does not address cost recovery for natural gas transmission lines. Reliable estimates indicate that we will have to build over 38,000 miles of additional transmission lines, a fifteen percent increase over current capacity, to deliver the increased amount of natural gas that will be required to meet the increased demand over the next fifteen years. My concern is that if the Congress determines that enhanced cost recovery is necessary to generate the additional investment required to meet this enormous demand, that it is necessary to address the entire natural gas delivery system, including both distribution and transmission lines. There is no doubt that the demands for capital investment in this area are very large indeed. Industry studies show that the natural gas industry will require almost $50 billion in new investment for pipeline transmission lines over the next fifteen years, over $3.2 billion per year, to meet this demand. These expenditures also include the United States portion of an Alaskan Gas Pipeline, which offers tremendous potential for this country in meeting its energy needs. These are daunting sums. I am very concerned whether this capital can be raised in both the current economic climate and under our current cost recovery system. Over the past year, the companies we depend upon to raise the capital required to build these transmission lines lost over $60 billion in market capitalization. This situation will impede their ability to raise the necessary capital in the market. Accelerated depreciation will help alleviate this problem by increasing cash flow, thus reducing a company's need to borrow money to build additional pipelines and lower the cost of capital that must be borrowed to complete the projects. Our committee recognized as much, as did the House, when it chose to lower the depreciation period for natural gas transmission lines from 20 to 15 years. I supported this decision, but we may not be able to utilize fully this increased distribution capacity if we do not take similar steps regarding transmission. After all, natural gas will not arrive at the distribution point unless the transmission infrastructure is sufficient to handle the increased amount of natural gas required. There is no question that the capital investment required to ensure that we have adequate transmission pipelines to deliver natural gas is very significant. There is also no question that Congress needs to examine the entire delivery system to ensure that the benefits of any improved cost recovery are utilized efficiently and do not produce unwanted bottlenecks. I think it would be appropriate for us to review carefully the need for shorter depreciation periods not just for distribution lines but for natural gas transmission lines as well when this matter goes to conference. Any decisions regarding natural gas depreciation must be made with an eye towards their effect on the system as a whole, including transmission lines.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Burns, I am introducing the Children's Safe Sleepwear and Burn Prevention Act of 2002. This legislation is designed to prevent sleepwear-related burn injuries and reverse the 1997 decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission on children's sleepwear safety regulations. In 1996, the CPSC made two principle changes to the sleepwear safety regulations. First, the Commission determined that because children age 0-9 months were not mobile, they were not at risk from fire. Consequently, the revised regulations totally exempted sleepwear for young infants from any safety regulations. Second, the CPSC decided that so-called ``tight-fitting'' sleepwear did not have to meet any fire safety requirements on the mistaken assumption that tight-fitting garments do not burn. As a result of the Commission's action, I heard from the Shriners Hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Shirners Hospitals for children operate four burn centers in the United States and treat over 20 percent of all serious pediatric burns in the country. The Shriners Hospitals conducted a study comparing the incidence of sleepwear- related burn injuries during the period 1995-1996, before the regulations were changed, to the period 1998-1999 after the changes had been put in place. The results of the Shriners study are sobering indeed. From 1995- 1996, Shriners Hospitals treated 14 children for sleepwear-related burn injuries. For the period 1998-1999, the number of children suffering from these sleepwear-related burns increased to 36, a 157 percent increase! The Shriners Hospitals also examined pediatric burn injuries where it was impossible to determine the exact type of clothing involved or where the children was not technically wearing sleepwear but may have been using this clothing to sleep in. Over the relevant time period, the number of children suffering clothing-related burn injuries increased from 70 to 147, a 110 percent increase! Similarly, the number of pediatric burn injuries where it was impossible to determine anything about the clothing being worn because the clothing had been totally burned away increased from 218 to 311, a 43 percent increase! All told, the number of burned children treated at Shriners Hospitals increased from 302 in 1995-1996 to 494 in 1998-1999, a 64 percent increase! The data regarding infants age 0-9 months is also revealing. In 1995- 1996 Shriners Hospitals treated just five children for sleepwear- related burn injuries under nine months of age. For 1998-1999, the total number of infants suffering such injuries rose to nineteen, a 280 percent increase! As a practical matter, almost all pediatric burn injuries involve ignition of the clothing and some other materials. While the safety regulations cannot save a child trapped in a raging inferno, a 1972 HEW study concluded that children in fires whose clothing ignited had a four to six-fold increase in mortality and morbidity compared to those who clothing did not ignite. Take, for example, a situation where the house is on fire and a parent picks up her infants and flees the burning house. Sparks are flying, but the infants garments do not ignite because they are flame resistent. If the sleepwear is not flame resistant, the sparks catch the clothing. The Children's Safe Sleepwear and Burn Prevention Act directs the Commission to restore the safety protections that it removed in 1997. Henceforth, young infants will not have to face the dangers of using sleepwear that provides no protection whatsoever against fire. Tight- fitting or snug sleepwear will also have to meet these fire safety requirements. There is, however, more that must be done to ensure a fire safety environment for our children. Another problem regarding the children's sleepwear regulations must be addressed. Under the CPSC's regulations, even the pre-1997 version, clothing that the manufacturer did not intend to be used as sleepwear were not required to meet the flammability safety requirements. Consequently, a manufacturer could simply label an item as day wear as sleepwear and completely avoid the safety requirements. This legislation eliminates this ``labeling loophole'' by creating a functional definition of sleepwear for children up to seven years of age. If, as a practical matter, clothing is used for sleepwear, then should meet the safety requirements. The legislation provides some guidance as to what types of garments are used for sleepwear with some regularity such as togs, bunny suits and garments with cartoon characters that are particularly attractive to young children. One might ask what alternatives are there to untreated cotton. Advances in technology now provide such alternatives. Cotton can be treated with a flame retardant that does not wash out because it is bonded to the cotton through a chemical process at the atomic level. The treatment adds little to the cost of children's sleepwear. The defense of our innocent children from the dangers of sleepwear related burn injuries should be a priority. If you have ever seen a child severely burned by flaming sleepwear, you have some sense of the suffering and horror that these injuries entail. We can make these horrible burn injuries less frequent by enacting this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Burns, I am introducing the Children's Safe Sleepwear and Burn Prevention Act of 2002. This legislation is designed to prevent sleepwear-related burn injuries and reverse the 1997 decision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission on children's sleepwear safety regulations. In 1996, the CPSC made two principle changes to the sleepwear safety regulations. First, the Commission determined that because children age 0-9 months were not mobile, they were not at risk from fire. Consequently, the revised regulations totally exempted sleepwear for young infants from any safety regulations. Second, the CPSC decided that so-called ``tight-fitting'' sleepwear did not have to meet any fire safety requirements on the mistaken assumption that tight-fitting garments do not burn. As a result of the Commission's action, I heard from the Shriners Hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Shirners Hospitals for children operate four burn centers in the United States and treat over 20 percent of all serious pediatric burns in the country. The Shriners Hospitals conducted a study comparing the incidence of sleepwear- related burn injuries during the period 1995-1996, before the regulations were changed, to the period 1998-1999 after the changes had been put in place. The results of the Shriners study are sobering indeed. From 1995- 1996, Shriners Hospitals treated 14 children for sleepwear-related burn injuries. For the period 1998-1999, the number of children suffering from these sleepwear-related burns increased to 36, a 157 percent increase! The Shriners Hospitals also examined pediatric burn injuries where it was impossible to determine the exact type of clothing involved or where the children was not technically wearing sleepwear but may have been using this clothing to sleep in. Over the relevant time period, the number of children suffering clothing-related burn injuries increased from 70 to 147, a 110 percent increase! Similarly, the number of pediatric burn injuries where it was impossible to determine anything about the clothing being worn because the clothing had been totally burned away increased from 218 to 311, a 43 percent increase! All told, the number of burned children treated at Shriners Hospitals increased from 302 in 1995-1996 to 494 in 1998-1999, a 64 percent increase! The data regarding infants age 0-9 months is also revealing. In 1995- 1996 Shriners Hospitals treated just five children for sleepwear- related burn injuries under nine months of age. For 1998-1999, the total number of infants suffering such injuries rose to nineteen, a 280 percent increase! As a practical matter, almost all pediatric burn injuries involve ignition of the clothing and some other materials. While the safety regulations cannot save a child trapped in a raging inferno, a 1972 HEW study concluded that children in fires whose clothing ignited had a four to six-fold increase in mortality and morbidity compared to those who clothing did not ignite. Take, for example, a situation where the house is on fire and a parent picks up her infants and flees the burning house. Sparks are flying, but the infants garments do not ignite because they are flame resistent. If the sleepwear is not flame resistant, the sparks catch the clothing. The Children's Safe Sleepwear and Burn Prevention Act directs the Commission to restore the safety protections that it removed in 1997. Henceforth, young infants will not have to face the dangers of using sleepwear that provides no protection whatsoever against fire. Tight- fitting or snug sleepwear will also have to meet these fire safety requirements. There is, however, more that must be done to ensure a fire safety environment for our children. Another problem regarding the children's sleepwear regulations must be addressed. Under the CPSC's regulations, even the pre-1997 version, clothing that the manufacturer did not intend to be used as sleepwear were not required to meet the flammability safety requirements. Consequently, a manufacturer could simply label an item as day wear as sleepwear and completely avoid the safety requirements. This legislation eliminates this ``labeling loophole'' by creating a functional definition of sleepwear for children up to seven years of age. If, as a practical matter, clothing is used for sleepwear, then should meet the safety requirements. The legislation provides some guidance as to what types of garments are used for sleepwear with some regularity such as togs, bunny suits and garments with cartoon characters that are particularly attractive to young children. One might ask what alternatives are there to untreated cotton. Advances in technology now provide such alternatives. Cotton can be treated with a flame retardant that does not wash out because it is bonded to the cotton through a chemical process at the atomic level. The treatment adds little to the cost of children's sleepwear. The defense of our innocent children from the dangers of sleepwear related burn injuries should be a priority. If you have ever seen a child severely burned by flaming sleepwear, you have some sense of the suffering and horror that these injuries entail. We can make these horrible burn injuries less frequent by enacting this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 2002 ACCESS Act. It is imperative that the Congress continue its commitment to low-income families by presenting the President with a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I share the Administration's goal to ``Leave No Child Behind.'' Children should not be the victims of welfare reform, left behind with inconsistent child care accommodations that do not adequately prepare them for the challenges to come. It is precisely this cycle of dependency and poverty that welfare reform was intended to end. In 1996, we fundamentally changed the mentality of welfare from dependence to independence by creating the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, block grant. At the same time, we made a commitment to poor families that were sent into the work force at low wages that they would be supported with access to quality child care. Reliable child care is directly related to job retention. A parent cannot be in two places at once, and an employer is not likely to retain an employee that is unreliable at work due to a lack of consistent care for their child. It is not just about getting a job, this is about helping families keep their jobs and move up the career ladder. In Louisiana, I hear over and over again about access to safe and affordable child care. The legislation being introduced today will ensure that child care provided to these families is not only affordable, but that it meets certain safety and quality standards to ensure children are placed in an environment where they can grow and learn. Access to child care is often limited by states to families with the lowest incomes. National studies show only 12-15 percent of children eligible for federally subsidized child care get it. And in many rural areas, there are no child care providers at all. So as Congress debates increasing work requirements for people on welfare, the increasing need for working families to have quality child care must also be taken into consideration. I commend Senators Dodd and Snowe for their efforts to increase access to child care for low income families, while improving the quality of child care services.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 2002 ACCESS Act. It is imperative that the Congress continue its commitment to low-income families by presenting the President with a bipartisan bill reauthorizing the Child Care and Development Block Grant. I share the Administration's goal to ``Leave No Child Behind.'' Children should not be the victims of welfare reform, left behind with inconsistent child care accommodations that do not adequately prepare them for the challenges to come. It is precisely this cycle of dependency and poverty that welfare reform was intended to end. In 1996, we fundamentally changed the mentality of welfare from dependence to independence by creating the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, block grant. At the same time, we made a commitment to poor families that were sent into the work force at low wages that they would be supported with access to quality child care. Reliable child care is directly related to job retention. A parent cannot be in two places at once, and an employer is not likely to retain an employee that is unreliable at work due to a lack of consistent care for their child. It is not just about getting a job, this is about helping families keep their jobs and move up the career ladder. In Louisiana, I hear over and over again about access to safe and affordable child care. The legislation being introduced today will ensure that child care provided to these families is not only affordable, but that it meets certain safety and quality standards to ensure children are placed in an environment where they can grow and learn. Access to child care is often limited by states to families with the lowest incomes. National studies show only 12-15 percent of children eligible for federally subsidized child care get it. And in many rural areas, there are no child care providers at all. So as Congress debates increasing work requirements for people on welfare, the increasing need for working families to have quality child care must also be taken into consideration. I commend Senators Dodd and Snowe for their efforts to increase access to child care for low income families, while improving the quality of child care services.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2979 to S. 517, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, which will enhance the safety of our interstate pipeline systems. As you may recall, the Senate passed this legislation last February as one of the first orders of business of the 107th Congress. This bill is the product of over 3 years of work and recent compromise and I urge my colleagues to join me in support. The aim of the bill is to ensure the safety and security of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. I appreciate the considerable number of hours that went into creating this bill by all of the parties. I also am satisfied by the spirit of compromise that infused the parties' diligent efforts. As a result of their cooperative work we have a bill that reaffirms our efforts to oversee the safety of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines effectively without interfering with the pipeline operators and owners ability to provide service to our nation and without compromising national security. Last Congress, the Senate passed an almost identical version of this bill by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the bill was not passed by the House of Representatives under the expedited procedures of suspension of the rules, because it did not pass with a two-thirds majority, although a majority supported the measure, 232- 158. Last February, the Senate again approved this bipartisan legislation, yet we are still awaiting action by the House on this measure. Today, we are offering this legislation as an amendment to S. 517 in an effort to focus attention on this important safety matter and work toward reconciling our legislation with the House of Representatives. I hope that we can continue to work with all of the interested parties as the legislation moves though the legislative process. Over the past few years, we have experienced two major pipeline accidents, one in Bellingham, WA, and the other near Carlsbad, NM. While these tragic accidents happened, we need to take all necessary steps to ensure that other accidents are not waiting to happen. I think that this legislation will increase the tools available to OPS to ensure that our pipeline system is as safe as possible. I would ask that OPS use the tools that we provide to ensure the appropriate level of oversight of pipeline safety practices. While there were many who worked with Senators McCain and Hollings on the Commerce Committee to ensure passage of pipeline safety legislation, I would like to recognize, in particular, the efforts of Senators Murray and Bingaman. Senator Murray doggedly pursued changes to increase the level of safety and public participation in pipeline safety, and she worked closely with other Commerce Committee members to ensure a reasonable and fair compromise. Senator Bingaman was instrumental in helping bolster the bill's provisions on research and development, in fact, he authored provisions to focus our research on progressive areas that will help us develop better systems of early detection, and to ensure that we can avoid accidents such as those that occurred in Bellingham, WA, and near Carlsbad, NM. A floor amendment which was accepted during consideration of S. 235 last February mandates a 5-year integrity inspection period for pipelines. Since passage of the S. 235 last February, I understand that studies, conducted by Batelle and Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., indicate that a 5-year period for integrity inspections will cause significant impacts on natural gas consumers as a result of pipeline capacity reductions resulting from such a short inspection period. I want to bring these studies to the attention of my colleagues as we prepare to move this important piece of pipeline safety legislation to conference. Lastly, I would like to address one change to the legislation since Senate passage last year. Since September 11, we have all recognized that the way the Government has done business may change due to security concerns. In the past, we have made efforts to expand the amounts of information made available to the public, including encouraging electronic access to more data and information on pipelines. Today, we must balance the concerns of national security with the needs of law-abiding citizens who live and work alongside pipelines. We have included language which, in my opinion, fairly addresses the concerns of the public in obtaining pipeline safety information and enables the Government to safeguard information which could be used to do harm or for terrorist activities. This bill is good legislation. It will require greater safety and oversight of our Nation's pipeline system. The bill also allows for a greater degree of public participation in the process of pipeline safety, without jeopardizing national security, updates the penalties that would be levied for misconduct and provides whistle blower protection for employees who reveal misconduct. The bill also provides for Federal investment in research which will help us be more efficient and effective in providing a safer and more secure system. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I completely agree with the previous colloquy of my distinguished colleagues on the income forecast method of depreciation. The motion picture industry presently is facing a legal cloud that has serious economic implications for the industry. The cloud concerns the tax treatment of residual and participation payments under the income forecast method of accounting, the predominant method of accounting for the industry. In 1993, the Ninth Circuit held in Transamerica Corporation v U.S. that participations and residuals are included in the initial cost basis of a property for purposes of the income forecast method. Yet, despite this clear result, I understand that the Internal Revenue Service is beginning to challenge that treatment. Simply put, this is wrong--as a matter of law, as a matter of policy, and as a matter of fairness. The Transamerica decision continues to remain the proper result under present law. As the Transamerica Court found, the inclusion of participations and residuals in the film's costs is necessary in order to match income and expenses property and to clearly reflect income. I believe we must quickly lift this cloud of uncertainty from one of our most critical industries. I am in agreement with my colleagues that Treasury should issue regulations which eliminate the current uncertainty this year as part of its 2001 Priority Guidance Plan.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting the legislation and amendment pending before the Senate. This will be the third time the Senate has passed this legislation. You would think that eventually it is going to get done. It has failed to pass the House, although the House at one point had an identical provision and it passed. It passed with a majority, but they took it up under suspension of the rules, and they needed two-thirds majority, so it did not pass. This legislation will now pass the Senate for a third time and is still waiting on the House to take action on it, which will send it ultimately to the President for his signature. There are literally millions and millions of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that cover the United States. Every State has natural gas pipelines and oil pipelines that traverse through various parts of individual States and carry literally billions and billions of cubic feet of natural gas every day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year. Gas comes from my State of Louisiana, from the Gulf of Mexico. It goes to California. It goes to Florida, to Maine, to New Jersey. It goes all the way up to the Midwest and throughout the United States. We have gas coming from the north that serves markets in the southern lower 48. This is an intricate pattern, a complicated transportation system that is absolutely needed and necessary. Without the extent of the natural gas pipeline system, this country would simply not be able to operate. It provides energy for plants. It provides energy for factories. It provides heat and also cooling elements to family homes, to businesses, to offices throughout the United States. This, indeed, is one of the most sophisticated, complicated systems that man has ever devised in order to transport energy. Is there potential and likely sometimes accidents that happen? The answer is yes. There were two tragic accidents--one in the State of Senator Murray, Washington, one in the State of Senator Bingaman, New Mexico--that were tragic and unfortunate. They should never have happened. But if you look at it from the perspective of the millions and millions of miles of the transportation system, with the good that it provides, it is absolutely clear that these systems must be protected. We need to do a better job of ensuring their safety and security, their protection from normal accidents, as well as insulate them to the maximum extent possible from terrorist activities and even from deranged activities such as of the drunk shooting out the Alaskan pipeline in the State of Senators Stevens and Murkowski. We can do that. There is not a form of transportation in this country that does not have accidents that happen: Airplanes crash; trains run off tracks; trucks run off highways; accidents happen; people are injured; people are killed. The answer is not to eliminate the system but to better ensure the security of the systems, to build better trucks, to better investigate the drivers, to better inspect their licenses, to build better airplanes, to correct deficiencies in airplanes, to require better training for pilots. As we do those things for those other means of transportation, it is also incumbent that we provide better and adequate inspections and guarantee that pipelines are built to the highest standards possible from an engineering and technical capability, and also that people are involved in the decisions as to where pipelines are actually built and where they are laid in order to let the public know what is near them in order for them to be aware. It is interesting to note that pipelines are things you never see. Every day, every hour, every minute they are providing efficiency in terms of transportation of energy. Pipelines are buried under the sea, under the ground. People don't see them. They don't know they are there. But they are there to do a very effective job to provide for the security of this country. This legislation will also provide for better security and better safety for the general public to make sure that while we are transporting billions and billions of cubic feet of natural gas, we are also doing it as safely as we possibly can. Previous speakers have talked about the structure of the legislation. I support it. It is good legislation. It has brought both the pipeline companies, as well as citizens, to the same table to negotiate with government officials to get a system in place that we can be proud of and will assure the system continues to work as it has in the past with the maximum degree of safety that is humanly possible. This legislation goes a long way toward doing that. This is the third time the Senate will pass this legislation. We urge our colleagues in the other body to do it just once. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I thank the Chair for presiding in such an effective fashion. I will take a minute in the general debate time to talk about the energy bill that is before the Senate. No. 1, let me say I think we desperately need an energy bill. It sort of goes without saying, if there is anything both sides could probably agree with in what is otherwise likely to be a relatively contentious debate, certainly we can all agree on the fact we need an energy bill in this country. The reasons are quite obvious. The United States prides itself in being a very strong and powerful nation, probably the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth, and perhaps the most powerful and strongest nation in the history of the world. When it comes to being self-sufficient in most aspects important to America, we are there. When it comes to the food we eat, Americans produce more than we can eat. In fact, we supply the food for a large number of countries around the world. We do very well. When it comes to medicine, America is the envy of the world. Pharmaceutical companies are the best. Medical technology and science is the best in this country. People come to America when they need very sophisticated, quality health care if they can find a way to get to our country. So in most all of what we do, including education, we are indeed No. 1 in the world, except when it comes to energy. The facts are the opposite when it comes to energy. We are dependent on other countries to help run America, whether it is running automobiles on the highways, or the tractors in the fields, or launching a space vehicle with another satellite, or running a naval vessel, or running a tank, or supplying the men and women fighting in Afghanistan. So much of the energy we use as a nation does not come from our country. It comes from foreign nations. I have seen the number as high as 58 percent of the energy we use in this country comes from foreign sources. Not only does it come from foreign sources, unfortunately it comes from countries on which we really cannot depend. Our energy does not come from Canada. It does not come from people who have been allied with the United States in most difficult battles. Much of the energy supply comes from countries that themselves are not particularly the most stable countries in the world, which means the oil we get from them is not as dependable as it should be. Not only is it coming from countries in a part of the world that is one of the most dangerous, with the potential for those supplies being interrupted at a moment's notice because of some additional conflict in the Middle East, it comes from those countries through a process that, if it were engaged in in this country, people would go to the penitentiary. What I mean by that is quite simple. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, which supplies much of the energy and the oil we use to run America on a regular basis, has meetings at very nice places around the world. They bring in all of their oil ministers, they sit around the table, and guess what they do. They fix prices. They determine how much energy is going to cost America by sitting around the table and deciding how much they will produce. If they think the price is too low, they cut back their production, they raise the price and sell it to the United States and other countries around the world. Between 55 and 60 percent of our oil comes from parts of the world that fix prices. If business men and women did that in this country, they could go to the penitentiary because it is illegal to fix prices. For years we have been comfortable with getting our energy from an organization that, if they operated in America, would go to jail. It is, therefore, abundantly clear we need an energy policy that allows us to approach self-sufficiency. I daresay if we imported half the food we ate in this country, people would be marching on the streets in our Nation's Capital saying that is unacceptable because food is critically important to this country's survival. That is, of course, true. But equally true is that critical to our Nation's survival and stability is the energy that we use. The energy that we use to engage in commerce is also critical to the security and the long-range future of the strongest Nation on Earth. We can do no less than come up with an energy bill that addresses this most serious of problems. For the most part, I think that the energy bill before the committee is a movement in that direction. It can be improved. I hope, through the amendment process, it will be approved. We have to have a balanced energy package. We cannot be putting all of our eggs in one basket. I remember in the not too distant past when we talked about trying to control the supply of drugs in this country. The popular phrase at that time was ``just say no.'' It sounded good, but it only addressed half of the equation. It addressed the half of the equation of the demand side. If we do not have a demand for drugs, we will solve the drug problem. It never really worked because we did not pay enough attention to the supply side. We did not do enough to try to stop the flow of drugs illegally into this country. The answer, obviously, was we had to do both. We had to control the demand in this country and we had to control the illegal supply to this country. The same thing is true with regard to energy. We cannot just save our way out. We cannot just rely only on alternative fuels. I have voted for over $6 billion of assistance for alternative forms of energy. I believe in it. I think we have to have renewable energy. We have to have alternative kinds of energy. I hope we can develop wind as a source of energy, as well as solar power. We need to also look at the alternative of hydrogen cell fuel utilization. We have to look at waste material, whether it is chicken waste, swine waste, or whatever have you. I guarantee you that in the foreseeable future we are not going to run the planes of this country and the tractors on the farms with chicken waste; it is not enough. We also have to develop our traditional oil and gas resources. I have heard some of our colleagues and I have heard some of the environmental groups say we cannot drill our way out of this problem, as if we were drilling everywhere. Just the opposite is true. The chart I have shows the light orange areas where we can not drill. The entire east coast of the United States of America, either through congressional actions or moratoriums by Presidents, both Democrat and Republican Presidents, has said we are not going to look for oil and gas from the State of Maine down to the State of Florida. It is not quite ``drilling our way out of it.'' On the other side of the country, from the Canadian border and the State of Washington down to the country of Mexico, and all of the areas between, through moratoriums or acts of Congress, they have said: Don't do it here either. All of this area is a potential source of oil and gas but because of the opposition of the locals along the west coast of the United States, we are not looking, we are not searching, and we are not producing energy, much of which is consumed in their respective States. The west coast of the United States is off limits, the east coast of the United States is off limits, and the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico, where everybody seems to want to send the offshore production, off Louisiana or Texas, we will not worry; it is also off limits, as well. This Congress just engaged in a very bitter battle over a proposal by President Clinton to lease sale 181 in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. President Clinton made a compromise in the sale by reducing the area. This administration reduced it by two thirds further, and we had a knock-down, drag-out battle on the floor of the Senate to eliminate it completely. All of these areas are restricted: Don't do it here; not in my backyard; do it somewhere else. And we continue to import over 58 percent of our country. We need an energy policy. It should be balanced. And balanced does not mean just wind, solar, and hydrogen cell use; it means a combination. There will be efforts by the Senator from Alaska to address some areas of interest in his State. I remember quite well back in 1980 when we were engaged in debate on the Alaskan lands bill--1978, 1980. I was a Member of the House of Representatives, chairman of the subcommittee that handled the Alaskan lands bill over in the House. We produced a bill which said we were going to set aside a very large area in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and we were not going to allow any exploration in that Arctic National Wildlife Refuge except for one particular area which was designated as section 1002 of that particular part of the Arctic wildlife refuge. We said the Arctic wildlife refuge would have about 19 million acres in it. We were not going to do production in those 19 million acres, but we were going to reserve 1.5 million acres in section 1002 of the bill. I was there when we wrote it. It was our intent to say at that time, that one section of the 19 million acres we will look at and ask USGS to do seismic work and come back to the Congress and recommend whether we should proceed in that area or not. It is interesting. The New York Times and Washington Post are totally opposed to what the Senator from Alaska is attempting to do now. But do you know what they were saying when we did this back in the 1980s? The New York Times said: Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most promising untapped source of oil in North America. . . . the total acreage affected by development would represent only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness. . . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the nation's energy needs. That was in the New York Times in 1987 and 1988. The Washington Post had an equally strong comment about what we were doing back in 1987 when we set up this process. They said: But that part of the Arctic coast-- Meaning the coastal plains-- is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other place where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life. . . . That oil could help ease the country's transition to lower oil supplies and . . . reduce its dependence on uncertain imports. Congress would be right to go ahead and, with all the conditions and environmental precautions that apply to Prudhoe Bay, see what is under the refuge's tundra. That was in 1987. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than when they wrote those comments and remarks back in 1987. They were right then. They would be even more right if they said the same thing today. But all of a sudden, this area has become something that no one can even touch. I understand when people say, ``Not in my backyard.'' I don't agree with it because it is a national program, not just for one State. But if you live in the neighborhood, you ought to be listened to more than if you don't live in the neighborhood where the activity is going to occur. We are talking about activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the small sliver up there of 2,000 acres. The Governor of the State, who is a Democrat, supports this activity, the two Senators who represent the State support the activity, and the Member of Congress in the House of Representatives who represents that area supports that activity. I would add the Native Alaskans who live in the area also support the activity. So if you want to look to the people who are there and who are duly elected to represent the people, they enthusiastically support the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Alaska. Maybe there is an environmental group sitting in a fancy office in San Francisco that thinks: If we take this position, by golly, do you know how many more members we can get? This will be our cause celebre for the next 5 years. They love the issue, but I think their position is not correct. We just can't do it all in Louisiana. We are going to do our part. We are going to do more than our part. We will continue to do so. This has to be something that all of us participate in as a nation. We have to have more savings. We have to have more alternative sources of fuel. We have to have more exotic ways of finding energy through wind and solar power. But we also have to do what is necessary for a number of years to come in balancing that with traditional oil and gas supplies. You cannot say ``not here, not there, and not there,'' and solve the problem. For those who say there is not that much up there, No. 1, no one knows how much is up there until we take a look, but the estimates we have from the USGS and the industry say there is a sufficient amount of supply up there to reduce our dependence and eliminate all our imports from Saudi Arabia for the next 30 years. They are the largest exporter of oil to the United States. We can eliminate their imports to this country for the next 30 years as a result of that activity. That, I suggest, is a very important part of our Nation's energy solution. I hope we will have more time to debate this issue. I look forward enthusiastically to doing it. I think the Senator from the State where this would be involved has done an outstanding job of presenting this issue to this body, and I hope we listen to his recommendations. I yield the floor.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senator for the question. I will be brief. I know my colleague is waiting to speak. We have been doing offshore production in Louisiana in some of the most fragile areas for over 60 years. I would argue with anyone that this environment and this ecosystem down here is far more fragile than the ecosystem in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the Coastal Plain. They have tundra grass that grows during the winter a couple of inches high. We have, down here, an abundant supply of fin fish, of shrimp, of fur-bearing animals; it is a very fragile coastal wetland environment that is incredibly productive. Every single wildlife refuge in Louisiana has oil and gas production on it. We have learned. We have learned by mistakes. We have benefited from science. Now the activity and the way it is conducted is the state-of- the-art technology. To say we have not learned a sufficient amount of information to be able to apply that to an ecosystem that is not nearly as complicated, not nearly as fragile, with much smaller numbers of wildlife in existence, as in this area, I think is to ignore the last 60 years of balanced development that we have experienced. I think we ought to learn from those mistakes as well as learn from our positive accomplishment, and apply it in the area of the State of the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BREAUX. The wildlife refuge law was specifically set up by Congress to protect an area that had specific significance. But other activities that were compatible were to be allowed. You have to look at each wildlife refuge and determine whether that activity is compatible. Is farming, grazing, or oil and gas development compatible with the purposes of the refuge? In my State of Louisiana, 12 wildlife refuges-- Federal wildlife refuges and State wildlife refuges--have oil and gas production, in a much more fragile environment than is on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, all these other States have had the same activity in their wildlife refuges and it has been determined that it has been compatible. Do you take special precautions? Absolutely. But the point is, it is not a blanket prohibition. What is being asked today is a blanket prohibition, which I think is not justifiable, particularly when we have as strong a need as we do.

Mr. BREAUX. I think also these are national wildlife refuges. There are a number of State wildlife refuges that States have set aside that also have production on them as well. Congress set this up, as the Senator well knows--I helped write section 1002 over in the other body--as an area that was going to be looked to for potential exploration. The remaining 19 million acres in the rest of the wildlife refuges in ANWR was going to be set aside for no activity. But Congress specifically made a decision: Look, we are going to reserve section 1002 for potential exploration and production. That is exactly what the Washington Post and the New York Times were commending Congress for at that time. When President Jimmy Carter signed this bill, they knew that section had been set aside for the purposes of looking at potential oil and gas exploration. Now, all of a sudden, we come back and say: No, we just can't touch it. I think that is not being fair or balanced.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. I respond to the Senator's question by saying that the two things I have a problem with, and I think most of the people who support the program have a problem with, are, No. 1, it is mandatory. The second point is that it would allow on a first-come-first-served basis the sugar to come to the country outside of the program at a price below the loan level. If that part were corrected, I am fine, but I cannot support it being mandatory. We ought to have the flexibility to allow it, and it has to be brought in under the terms of the program.

Mr. BREAUX. I think more work certainly needs to be done. I think certainly an appropriate and proper discussion--and I have had this discussion with the distinguished chairman--could be during the conference. I make very clear the two problems I have: No. 1, it is mandatory on the reallocation; and No. 2, that allocation could allow the sugar to come in outside the program, the sugar program at below the marketing loan level which I think would destroy the program. Those are the two concerns that I think most Members have.

Mr. BREAUX. I cannot control this, but I am certainly willing to work with the Senator from California. I have stated the two problems. I am always willing to talk to see if we can work something out.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me assure my colleagues who might be listening to this rather arcane and complicated debate, I have the utmost respect for the Senator from California to the point of disagreeing with her on the fact that this is a minor amendment. I think that nothing my colleague from California does is minor. It is always a major effort, and she is to be commended for what she is attempting to do for one refinery in California. I point out that over the last 10 years, in my own State of Louisiana, we have lost 24 sugar mills. We did not try to change the sugar program to accommodate each one of those mills but, rather, tried to work in a cooperative fashion to have a national program. The Senator is absolutely correct that about 40 countries around the world have allocations to be able to export approximately 1.25 million tons of sugar into the United States to make sure we have enough sugar for domestic consumption. If a country does not use all of their allocation, it can be reallocated by the Secretary. It does not have to be. The Secretary makes a determination on what amount of sugar we need to fulfill the mandates of the program. If we do need more sugar, and countries have not used their allocation, the Secretary can give to a country an additional allocation. The difference at this point between what the Senator from California wants to do and the existing program is that they have to reallocate it and bring it into the United States under the terms of the program. It cannot be said to one country that they are going to be the only country in the world that is going to be able to bring sugar in to the United States with an allocation that does not comply with the terms of the sugar program. All of the 40 countries that send sugar to the United States have to come in under the terms of the program, and that is at a price that equals about 18 cents a pound. If there is 50 pounds of unallocated sugar and it is said to any country in the world, come in and bid for the right to send that sugar to the United States, they can bid the price down to a point that would have a substantial effect on the market. This amendment, if it went into effect, and large amounts of sugar were brought in outside of the program, could ultimately result in a large cost to the taxpayer. If it drives down the average price of sugar below the market loan rate, sugar will be forfeited to the Federal Government and taxpayers will be picking up sugar--because the price has gone below the marketing loan--at about 18 cents a pound. I don't think I have any problem giving the Secretary the right to reallocate sugar, which they now have when there is a shortfall, but not to do it outside of the program. Not to say to all of the countries that participate, you have to do it one way, but other countries, when we reallocate, you can do it without having to meet the terms of the loan itself. The Department does not have to reallocate; they do it if there is a need for the sugar. The amendment of the Senator from California mandates they reallocate, although it is not required in order to meet our domestic needs. In addition, she would mandate they allow it come in outside the program. We cannot design a national program for one refinery. I point out the refineries that make sugar are very divided on this issue. For those who do support our amendment, there is an equal number or more who do not. The Domino Sugar refinery in New York opposes it; the Domino refinery in Brooklyn, NY, opposes it; the Domino refinery in Baltimore, MD, opposes it, as well as the refinery in Chalmette, LA. The problem is there is a national program. The reason one refinery in one State does not have enough sugar is because their principal market has been Hawaii. As the Senator has correctly said, Hawaii is moving out of the sugar program. They have reduced their production of sugar, and that refinery does not find itself with a sufficient amount of sugar. But you cannot redesign the entire national program for one particular refinery and say we are going to let sugar come in to this one refinery outside of the program, with no price protection whatever, and put the entire program in jeopardy, with potential costs to the U.S. taxpayers. If it has the effect of driving the price below the loan level, sugar will be forfeited. It is very important to note that the program is operated at no cost to the taxpayer. We have no forfeited sugar. We do not want to be in a position of forfeiting sugar. If this amendment were to pass and we mandated that the Secretary reallocate sugar imported into this country outside the program, which is what it does, on a first-come-first- served basis, would not have to meet the terms of the program. So a company could bid and bring in sugar at 5 cents a pound if they wanted to dump in this market. That is what the amendment allows. I don't mind having it come in under the terms of the program, but to allow sugar to come in and be reallocated outside the terms of the program with regard to price potentially destroys the program and would be at a cost to the American taxpayer. At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to table the amendment. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BREAUX. Let me respond to the Senator. When she uses the term ``comes in on a first-come-first-served basis,'' that is a legal term, a term of art that clearly indicates that it can come in out of the program at a price below the market loan level of 18 cents a pound. That is the No. 2 problem with the amendment. It would come in outside the terms of the program. It can come in at a price much lower than the 18-cent loan level, which runs the risk of reducing the price of sugar throughout the United States. That is the No. 1 problem. The second problem is that it mandates it be done. In the past it has always been at the discretion of the Secretary. As the Senator has said, the Secretaries in the past, when they saw a need, have, in fact, allowed it to be reallocated. They can still continue to do that, but it can only be done within the terms of the program. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BREAUX

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Fall of Enron: How Could It Have Happened?''