Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. How much time remains?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say quickly in response, no court can relieve the responsibilities of this vote from our Members. Every Member is going to be responsible for the vote we cast. When my colleague says this is not a health issue, I respectfully disagree. This is profoundly a health issue. If mad cow disease is ever unleashed in this country, God forbid, we will find out what an acute health issue it is. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It is the prudent, careful, and cautious thing to do.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I may very briefly sum up, I hope my colleagues will give careful consideration to this vote. This vote would disapprove the ruling from the USDA that the border with Canada should be opened on March 7. I say respectfully that this runs a risk which we should not take. It is very clear from all of the evidence that Canada is not enforcing the regulations upon which USDA relied in recommending that the border be opened. The consequences to our country could be serious and dramatic. Let me close by reminding my colleagues that when mad cow disease got loose in England, 146 people died, and nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. We cannot and we should not run the risk of prematurely opening our border when we know there are four confirmed cases of mad cow disease in Canada, and when we know from the Canadians' own inspection service that in nearly 60 percent of the cases, animal matter was found where it should not have been. This is a consequential vote. I hope my colleagues will take it seriously. We ought to at least buy time until further investigations are made to assure us that the risk of mad cow disease coming into this country has been reduced in as significant a way as is possible. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana. If he asks for additional time, I will be happy to extend it to him.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the issue before this body is as clear as it can be. This is going to be a consequential vote, make no mistake about it. This may be a vote that Members look back on and, if they vote against this resolution, they may deeply regret that in the future, because if, God forbid, additional mad cow cases come in from Canada, and that awful disease spreads in America, the consequences to this country could be enormous. We all know what happened in Europe. It is not a matter of speculation. In England, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head were slaughtered in England alone. Let us connect the dots. In Canada, we know there are four confirmed cases of mad cow disease from cattle raised in that country. In addition, there is one case of a confirmed BSE positive cow, mad cow, that was imported from England. That is five cases. The most recent was a cow born after Canada supposedly put in the protections. The Canadians' own inspection service found that in 59 percent of the cases where they tested, animal matter was found where it was not supposed to be. That is what heightens the risk of mad cow disease. Some of those cases, in fairness, have now been resolved. Seventeen percent of the cases have not been. In Canada, there are 25,000 feed- producing entities on farms. They produce half of all the feed in Canada. Only 3 percent have been checked in the last 3 years. There are four known cases of mad cow in Canada. There should be no rush to open this border in the face of that evidence. The risk to this country, the risk to human life, and the risk to this industry is simply too great. My colleague talks about the National Cattlemen's position. This is what they have said with respect to opening the border. They said there are 11 conditions that should be met, and 8 of them have clearly not been met. I do not know if they have changed their position subsequently, but this is what they outlined, and 8 of these 11 positions have not been met. In my own State, the cattlemen have told me to go forward with this resolution. My own State legislature, overwhelmingly Republican, has overwhelmingly approved a resolution asking us to keep this border closed until we can have greater confidence that Canada is enforcing their own regulations. This is a consequential vote. The potential risk to this country is enormous. Anybody who is betting that Canada is enforcing their regulations is making a bet that I do not think stands much scrutiny. I will end as I began, at least in this part of the debate. When the Canadian media used the Information Act in their country to look at what the Canadian testing authority themselves had found, they looked at 70 tests conducted by the Canadian agency, and they found in 59 percent of the cases, animal matter was present where it was not supposed to be. This is a risk that is not worth taking. The consequences could be far too grave for the American people and the American economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the Senator from Colorado, that in the Conrad family, when asked, What is for dinner? beef is often the answer. But that is not the question. The question is, Are we going to keep the beef supply safe? The evidence is overwhelming that Canada is not enforcing their own regulations. Their own testing shows they have right now four cases of mad cow identified in Canada. I suggest to my colleagues that the better part of wisdom is for us not to open this border in a premature way. The risk is too great to our people and to our industry. The Senator cites the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. I met with my representative of the National Cattlemen in my State. They urged me to proceed. They urged me to go to a vote. They urged me to try to carry the vote. When I look at what the National Cattlemen said, here it is. They put out 11 conditions that need to be met before the border is opened, and only 3 of them have been met. I would be glad at a later point to go right through the 11 conditions they said should be met. We can go right to the eight that are clearly not met. This border should not be opened until these 11 conditions have been met. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague Senator Dorgan.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Kansas. He is my friend. I profoundly disagree with him about the conclusion. I think the risks run the opposite way. We want Japan to open their market to us? Then we better be able to assure them that our market and our supplies are safe. I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Canada is not enforcing their own regulations. Their own tests show it. They are not our tests. Their tests show they are not enforcing the regulations. I remind my colleagues of the consequences of a failure to get this right. In England, 146 people died. Almost 5 million head were slaughtered. There are four known cases of mad cow in Canada today, and an additional case of a cow imported from England. And we are going to open our border on March 7, when the Canadians' own testing agency shows that in 59 percent of the cases animal matter is present where it is not supposed to be? Is that what we are going to do? I hope not. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I respect the chairman of the committee, but on this issue we have a profound difference. Let me alert my colleagues and their staffs who are watching, this is going to be a consequential vote. We are only spending 3 hours on this issue this morning because we are operating under special procedures. But let every colleague of mine understand: They are going to be responsible for the votes they cast today. The risk that is being run here is significant. Let me remind my colleagues what happened in Europe when mad cow disease got loose on their continent. One hundred forty-eight people died in England alone. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered in that country. They found 183,000 head that were infected, and they believe there were 2 million head of livestock infected in England alone that they were not able to complete tests on because of the magnitude of the crisis. This vote may be critically important to the health of consumers and to the health of an entire industry. Make no mistake. When the question is science, that is precisely what this debate is about. Is, in fact, science being used by our neighbors to the north or are they simply putting regulations on the books that are not enforced? The record is clear and the facts will demonstrate conclusively, Canada is not enforcing their own regulations that are based on sound science. But if you don't enforce the regulations, if you don't do the inspections, what does it mean? What does it mean to have on the books regulations that are based on sound science if they are not enforced? I introduced S.J. Res. 4 on February 14 pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. It is a resolution to disapprove of the final rule produced by USDA that designates Canada as a minimal risk region for BSE or mad cow disease. Let's review the facts. Canada already has four known cases of mad cow disease. That is not speculation. That is not based on some wondering about what is happening in Canada. That is based on facts, four known cases. In addition, they have one case of a cow imported from England positively tested for mad cow disease. So this is not some theoretical discussion we are having today. They have mad cow disease. It is demonstrated. Now the question is, Should we run the risk of opening our border to livestock imports from Canada when the evidence, I believe, demonstrates clearly they are not enforcing their regulations to reduce the risk to them and to us? I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle and expanded beef product imports at this time is risky and, I believe, premature. Allowing the USDA rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country. Let me be perfectly clear. It has never been my intent to keep the border with Canada closed on a permanent basis. Over the last several weeks, I and many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about this rule. Unfortunately, those concerns have fallen on deaf ears. The Secretary of Agriculture has refused to withdraw the rule so sensible modifications could be made. This has left us with no option, other than this process, to stop a bad rule from becoming effective on March 7. We all know a judge has issued an injunction against the rule, but none of us can know when the judge might withdraw his injunction. Our obligation and our responsibility is clear. This rule can go forward on March 7 absent our action. Reopening the border under the conditions provided in the rule poses, I believe, grave safety risks for our consumers, serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry, and it complicates our efforts to reopen export markets. BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. As I indicated earlier, after it was first identified in England in 1986, England suffered nearly 150 deaths from this disease. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. Around the world, additional human deaths from Creutzfeld- Jacobs disease have been linked to BSE. So we must be very cautious before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known to have BSE. Again, this is not a matter of speculation. We know they have mad cow disease in that country. Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the international organization for animal health, known as the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have, or may have, BSE. In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed contaminated with animal protein containing BSE, it is critical that countries adopt measures to ensure that animal protein and other specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed. That is what is so important to understand here. This is a matter of what is in the feed that the cattle are eating. The OIE guidelines require a ban on cattle feed containing meat and bone meal from cattle be in effect for 8 years as the primary means to reduce the likelihood of BSE infecting cattle. Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have followed OIE guidelines in developing its rules. Canada's ban went into effect in August of 1997; that is less than 8 years ago. Even then, the Canadian rules allowed for potential BSE contaminants that were in the feed manufacturing and marketing system. Unfortunately, the way the Canadians put their rule into effect, it allowed potential BSE contaminants to work their way through the industry. Moreover, with respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins. The U.S. has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since Canada confirmed its first case of BSE in May of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. cattle and beef, a situation that continues today. Let me make this clear. When our friends say we have to open our border so others will open their borders to us, you have it backwards. The reason other countries have closed their borders to our exports is because of their concern about our allowing imports from Canada, when they have known cases of BSE, and when it is quite clear that Canada is not enforcing their regulations to prevent additional outbreaks of this serious disease. So it is very important that we and USDA move slowly, cautiously, and deliberately, and evaluate all possible risks before reopening our border to Canadian cattle. But the USDA rule doesn't do this. In particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed by the OIE. In fact, it appears that Canada has not dedicated the necessary resources for enforcement and compliance within a large part of its feed manufacturing industry. Colleagues, staffs who are listening, hear this well. There are nearly 25,000 noncommercial, on-farm feed mills in Canada that produce about 50 percent of Canada's livestock feed. Canada has inspected only 3 percent of these facilities over the last 3 years. This is a gaping hole in their compliance program. Let me repeat for anybody who missed it the first time. In Canada, there are 25,000 on-farm feed mills that are producing feed. Only 3 percent have been inspected in the last 3 years. Are we going to bet the lives of American consumers, bet the economic strength of an entire industry on that kind of a review regime? Is that what we are going to do today? I hope not. Since USDA announced its final rule designating Canada as a minimum- risk region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. Let me repeat that. Since USDA proclaimed Canada to be minimal risk, two more cases of mad cow disease have been discovered. The most recent one is particularly disturbing, because it involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. Again, let me repeat that. The most recent case of mad cow disease in Canada is in a cow that was born after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. Let's connect the dots. Four cases of mad cow disease in Canada and an additional one of a cow imported to Canada from Britain. Half of the Canadian feed industry has been inspected in only 3 percent of the cases over the last 3 years. The most recent cow discovered with the disease was discovered after the Canadian ban on animal proteins in cattle feed was put forward. What does this tell us? I believe it tells us the Canadian ban has been ineffective. It is not just my belief; we have evidence from Canada's own inspection service. Let's put up the first chart, if we could. This is from the Vancouver Sun, December 16, final edition: Secret tests reveal cattle feed contaminated by animal parts: Mad cow fears spark review of ``vegetable-only'' livestock feeds. It says that according to internal Canadian Food Inspection Agency documents--obtained by the newspaper through the Access to Information Act--70 feed samples labeled as vegetable-only were tested by the agency between January and March of 2004. Of those, 41, or 59 percent, were found to contain undeclared animal materials. This is the risk being run if this border is open to Canadian cattle on March 7 of this year. We know what happened in Europe. In England alone, 146 people died. Nearly 5 million head of livestock were slaughtered. Canada has 4 known cases of mad cow disease, and their own inspection service finds that in 59 percent of the cases where they have done testing, material that was not supposed to be present was present--the very material that can lead to the disease. Are we going to run the risk of allowing that to come into the United States? On February 2, 2005, 1 month ago, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency finally issued a report concerning these very serious charges. Of 65 Canadian samples that received further testing, 54 cases containing animal protein were determined to be proteins that were not prohibited. That is good news. Unfortunately, in 11 cases, or 17 percent, Canada could not rule out the presence of prohibited material. Since October 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of these import alerts against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force. I am getting very able assistance by my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts. That is high-class help. Let me repeat this because it is important for my colleagues to understand. Since October of 2003, our own FDA has issued 19 import alerts concerning Canadian feed products contaminated with illegal animal protein. Eight of those import alerts are still in force. Here they are: Muscle tissue in feed, where it is not supposed to be; muscle tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not supposed to be; May 10, 2004, muscle tissue and blood material in feed, where it is not supposed to be; February 5, 2005, mammalian bone and bovine hair in feed; October 28, 2003, suspect muscle tissue and unidentified animal hairs; April 6, 2004, blood and bone material present. These alerts--every single one of them--are still in force today. Are we going to run the risk here of opening this border before we can be confident that Canada is enforcing their own regulations? Finally, Canada has recently implemented new rules to further restrict the use of animal protein in livestock feed, as well as in fertilizer. Listen to this: Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross-contamination of livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal protein that might contain the BSE prions. To me this suggests clearly that even Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be inadequate. As I noted in a letter I sent with Senator Harkin, Senator Johnson, and Senator Salazar to the Secretary of Agriculture, there is concern that not enough time has elapsed to be certain that Canada's education, surveillance, and testing measures are truly indicative of their level of BSE risk. The bottom line is this: Canada has not achieved the necessary level of compliance to justify designating it as a minimal risk region. Their failure to enforce their own BSE measures could have serious consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border. What is the risk? First and foremost, it could create potential dangers for consumers in this country. The Consumer Federation of America has registered concern about the ramifications for consumer health and safety if the border reopened and support this resolution. They said: The Department of Agriculture's rule to open the border to Canadian cattle and cattle products under 30 months of age is decidedly less stringent than the international standards put forth by the [IOE]. . . . [I]t is important that USDA reconsider its push to open the Canadian border and reexamine the risks that such an action may pose to the U.S. consumers. It is not just the consumer groups that are concerned. Agricultural groups are concerned as well because this would not only pose a danger to our consumers but to an entire industry. The National Farmers Union and R-CALF USA have expressed strong support for the resolution because of their concern about ensuring the continued safety and integrity of our domestic cattle industry. This is what the Farmers Union has said: . . . National Farmers Union President . . . issued the following statement. ``We believe it is inappropriate to proceed with reopening the border at this time given Canada's most recent discoveries of BSE positive cattle and the uncertainty of how many additional cases will be detected. I urge members of the United States Senate to support and cosponsor this important resolution.'' R-CALF USA said: United States cattle producers should not be excluded from protections afforded by the more rigorous science-based BSE standards recognized throughout the world as necessary to effectively manage the human health and animal health risks associated with BSE. Our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the United States. Compared to 2003, our beef product exports are off by over 82 percent. Let's connect the dots. We have four cases of BSE, mad cow, proven in Canada. We have none in the United States. And yet countries we export to have remained closed to us. Why? Because of the risk they see from Canadian cattle coming into our market and being then further shipped to them. Here is what has happened to our U.S. beef exports: in 2003, $3.2 billion, down to under $600 million in 2004. Prior to the discovery of BSE in Canada, Canada's total live product and beef product exports to the U.S. amounted to over $2.2 billion. In 2004, their exports to the United States were cut in half, $1.2 billion. U.S. ranchers and our cattle industry have suffered greater trade losses in our overseas markets than Canada has experienced because of U.S. limitations on their sales. In fact, our losses have been twice as big as theirs. I believe that reopening the border now before we have reached agreement on reopening our export markets will only give our trade partners a further excuse to delay reopening these critical markets for U.S. producers. We heard earlier a reference to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which, prior to the new cases of BSE in Canada, supported reopening the border. They have recently adopted a new policy. It requires 11 conditions to be met before we designate Canada as a minimum-risk region. Of those conditions, only three will be met under the current rule. Let's be clear, the National Cattlemen's Association has outlined 11 specific items that need to be met. Only three of them have been under the rule. And it is not just a national issue. My State perhaps has as much at stake as any. The North Dakota State Legislature recently passed a resolution urging that our border with Canada remain closed for live cattle and beef product trade. My legislature is overwhelmingly Republican--overwhelmingly. They adopted this resolution overwhelmingly, saying keep this border closed until you can assure us and assure our people that it is safe. They have made a determination that nobody can give that assurance today. The recent announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 months of age is a step in the right direction; however, the announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's compliance with its own feed regulations. It was my hope that our new Secretary would withdraw the proposal to resume trade when he learned of these serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule is for Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval. At the very least, we ought to delay this rule from being put into effect until we have a better sense of what is happening in Canada. There is an investigation ongoing. Why ever would we decide to go forward and open this border before our own investigation is complete? Let me conclude as I began by saying to my colleagues, this is a consequential vote. None of us know precisely how great the risk is. What we can say with some certainty is there is risk, and the consequences of a failure to get this right could be enormous. I hope my colleagues think very carefully about this vote. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me make a couple quick points. It is true we had an investigation group go to Canada. Here is what they found. They went to seven feed mill operations in Canada. In six of the seven, they found one or more unsatisfactory task ratings. In two of the seven, they found serious failures to ensure prohibited material did not enter the food chain. More seriously, the assessment found that only 3 percent of Canada's on-farm feed manufacturers have been inspected at least once over the last 3 years. Now we are talking about 25,000 on-farm feed operations. These mills represent one-half of Canadian livestock feed production. Only 3 percent have been investigated, were checked in the last 3 years. My friends, we are talking about risk. What are the consequences of failure? In England, 146 people died. In England, they had to slaughter 5 million head. In Europe, these were the headlines, week after week: ``French Farmers in Grip of BSE Panic.'' ``World of Europe Suffering for UK Errors.'' ``Mad Cow Disease Kills 500 Dairy Cattle Every Week.'' ``Slaughter to Prevent Disease on Continent.'' There were 6 million heads slaughtered. We are talking about substantial risk to our industry, to our consumers. Let's be cautious. Let's not open the border before we are confident Canada is actually enforcing the regulations they have on their books. The evidence is very clear that they are not. Mr. President, I yield Senator Thomas 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am saddened by the passing of Tillie Fowler. My wife and I had the privilege of traveling with her overseas, and I found her to be a wonderful person. Tillie Fowler had a sparkle in her eye, and she had a warm way about her. We enjoyed her company. I think everybody who dealt with her respected Tillie Fowler's intelligence, her compassion, and her serious interest in making good policy for the country. I respected her contribution to her State and to our country. My wife and I commented many times after that trip what a delightful time we had with Tillie Fowler. We express our condolences to the family as well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), I have submitted a petition to discharge the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry from consideration of S.J. Res. 4, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rule relating to risk zones for introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, submitted by the Department of Agriculture under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, the Congressional Review Act.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects. Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply. Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers' operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs. The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the Act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. I am pleased that the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association has recognized the need for additional water project funding and endorsed this bill. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act that will be considered this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects. Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply. Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers' operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs. The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water- related infrastructure repairs. Under the Act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. I am pleased that the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association has recognized the need for additional water project funding and endorsed this bill. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act that will be considered this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a member of my staff who will be retiring from his position in the U.S. Senate. Wally Rustad is a man who is recognized by his colleagues and myself as an extremely dedicated, hard-working, and joyful public servant. Mr. Rustad has had a remarkable career in public service, spanning close to half a century. He joined the Army in 1955, where he served in Germany until 1958 and in the Reserves until 1961. Following that, he taught high school history and literature in Williston, ND. In 1965, he pursued his interest in politics with a move to Washington, D.C. to become a legislative assistant for the Honorable Rolland Redlin in the U.S. House of Representatives. After 2 years, he returned to North Dakota to work for Basin Electric Cooperative. But in 1970, he was drawn back to Washington, D.C. to work for Congressman Arthur Link in the U.S. House of Representatives as chief of staff and senior spokesperson. With experience gained from his time on Capitol Hill, Mr. Rustad went on to a position with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, where he soon became the director of Government Relations. His work at the NRECA was recognized and praised by many. Under his direction, the NRECA saw the strength of its political influence grow substantially, prompting the Wall Street Journal to call the co-op lobby the second most powerful in Washington. He spent his years on the political front lines defending against attacks on the rural electric program. On February 17, 2004, Wally was presented with the prestigious Clyde T. Ellis Award, which honors an individual for contributions clearly above the routine call of duty in furthering the principles and progress of rural electrification and the development and utilization of national resources. For the past 5\1/2\ years, I have been honored to have Wally serve on my staff. He brought with him his extensive experience in the energy industry and rural economic development and a tremendous dedication to our home State of North Dakota. During his tenure in my office, he has worked on economic development issues for North Dakota and in outreach to numerous individuals and groups throughout the State. As my State liaison, he has built strong rapport and stayed in close contact with constituents, responding to needs and monitoring priority issues to make sure that the views of North Dakotans are represented in Washington. A native of Grenora, ND, population 261, Wally is a tremendous advocate for our home State. He and his family still own a farm near Grenora. Last summer, Wally and his wife, Marlys, organized a trip for a group of 38 of their friends to tour the State. They visited the Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center and trails along the Missouri River, toured the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, attended the musical and pitch fork fondue in Medora, and did a lot of golfing. His tour group was awed by the history and beauty of the State and, of course, its golf courses. As Wally put it, it was ``one small thing'' he could do to help promote economic development and tourism in North Dakota. Wally and his wife of 43 years, Marlys Rustad nee Jacobson, live in Leesburg, VA. Their daughter Kimberly and her husband, Clark Kelly, and their children, Avery, Kate and William, live in Mobile, AL. Their daughter Jill and her husband Jonathan Adler, and their children, Julia, Jami and Jessica, live in Leesburg, VA. Jon, their son, lives in Los Angeles, CA. Wally is a man with great dedication to public service. He arrives at work each day shortly after 6 a.m., after commuting for 2 hours, and brews the first pot of coffee. He greets his colleagues with a smile on his face and the news of the day as they arrive into work. As the late North Dakota Senator Quentin Burdick once said, ``Wally Rustad is a small-town North Dakotan who has made it big in Washington. He has a genuine commitment to serving the people of rural America.'' As Wally goes forward in his life, I hope that he proudly looks back from time to time and knows what a difference he has made in the lives of so many people. He is a good friend and a wonderful American whom I am honored to have had the pleasure to work with. I commend him for his accomplishments and outstanding service and wish him well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the final rule promulgated by USDA that designates Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE. I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle imports at this time is premature. Allowing the BSE rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country. Reopening the border poses serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry. And it complicates our efforts to reopen export markets. BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. After BSE was first identified in England in 1986, Europe was forced to destroy millions of head of cattle. And, around the world, dozens of human deaths from Creutzfeld-- Jacob's Disease have since been linked to BSE. So we must be very careful before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known to have BSE. Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the International Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have or may have BSE. In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed contaminated with animal proteins containing BSE, it is critical that countries adopt measures to ensure that animal proteins and other specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed. Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have fully followed OIE guidelines in developing its rules. Moreover, with respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins. The United States has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since Canada confirmed its first indigenous case of BSE in May of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. cattle and beef products--a situation that continues today with regard to some of our most important customers. So it is very important that USDA move slowly and deliberately and evaluate all possible risks before re-opening the border to Canadian cattle. But the USDA rule does not do this. In particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed by the OIE. Since USDA announced its proposed final rule designating Canada as a Minimum-Risk Region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. The most recent one is particularly disturbing because it involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. This raises serious questions about whether the Canadian feed ban is being effectively enforced. These questions are only reinforced by other evidence of lax enforcement in Canada. For example, numerous Canadian newspapers have reported that Canadian Food Inspection Agency tests indicate a disturbingly high level of non- compliance with Canada's overall livestock feed regulations. An article in the Vancouver Sun indicates that secret tests found animal proteins that violated Canada's feed regulations in 41 of 70 Canadian feed samples. More than half of these ``vegetarian'' feed samples contained animal proteins. More than half. Clearly, feed regulation compliance in Canada is not up to par. Since October, 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of those import alerts against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force. Finally, Canada has recently issued new rules to further restrict the Use of animal proteins in livestock feed as well as in fertilizer. Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross contamination of livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal proteins that might contain the BSE prions. To me, this suggests that even Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be inadequate. In addition, as noted in a letter I, along with Senators Harkin, Johnson and Salazar, recently sent to Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, there is concern, that not enough time has elapsed to be sure that Canada's education, surveillance and testing measures are truly indicative of their level of BSE risk. The bottom line is this. Canada has not achieved the necessary level of compliance with OIE rules to justify designating it as a minimal risk region. Canada's failure to enforce its BSE measures could have serious consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border. First and most obviously, it would create potential dangers for consumers in this country. Second, it would pose dangers for the health of our U.S. cattle herd. Third, even if we do not end up with BSE-tainted imports, the perception of heightened risk for consumers could have adverse economic consequences for the U.S. cattle industry. Finally, our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the U.S. I fear that reopening the border now, before we have reached agreement on reopening our export markets, will only give our trade partners an excuse to further delay reopening these critical markets for U.S. producers. Yesterday's announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 months of age is a small step in the right direction. However, this announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's compliance with its feed regulations, which has been cited as the primary basis for extending a Minimal-Risk Region designation to Canada. It was my hope that our new Secretary of Agriculture would withdraw the proposal to resume trade with Canada when he learned of these serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule from going forward is for the Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval. Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue on how to move forward in a way that will ensure the safety of the U.S. cattle herd and help open export markets. Our consumers and livestock producers deserve nothing less.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the final rule promulgated by USDA that designates Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE. I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle imports at this time is premature. Allowing the BSE rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country. Reopening the border poses serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry. And it complicates our efforts to reopen export markets. BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. After BSE was first identified in England in 1986, Europe was forced to destroy millions of head of cattle. And, around the world, dozens of human deaths from Creutzfeld-- Jacob's Disease have since been linked to BSE. So we must be very careful before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known to have BSE. Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the International Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have or may have BSE. In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed contaminated with animal proteins containing BSE, it is critical that countries adopt measures to ensure that animal proteins and other specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed. Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have fully followed OIE guidelines in developing its rules. Moreover, with respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins. The United States has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since Canada confirmed its first indigenous case of BSE in May of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. cattle and beef products--a situation that continues today with regard to some of our most important customers. So it is very important that USDA move slowly and deliberately and evaluate all possible risks before re-opening the border to Canadian cattle. But the USDA rule does not do this. In particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed by the OIE. Since USDA announced its proposed final rule designating Canada as a Minimum-Risk Region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. The most recent one is particularly disturbing because it involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. This raises serious questions about whether the Canadian feed ban is being effectively enforced. These questions are only reinforced by other evidence of lax enforcement in Canada. For example, numerous Canadian newspapers have reported that Canadian Food Inspection Agency tests indicate a disturbingly high level of non- compliance with Canada's overall livestock feed regulations. An article in the Vancouver Sun indicates that secret tests found animal proteins that violated Canada's feed regulations in 41 of 70 Canadian feed samples. More than half of these ``vegetarian'' feed samples contained animal proteins. More than half. Clearly, feed regulation compliance in Canada is not up to par. Since October, 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of those import alerts against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force. Finally, Canada has recently issued new rules to further restrict the Use of animal proteins in livestock feed as well as in fertilizer. Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross contamination of livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal proteins that might contain the BSE prions. To me, this suggests that even Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be inadequate. In addition, as noted in a letter I, along with Senators Harkin, Johnson and Salazar, recently sent to Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, there is concern, that not enough time has elapsed to be sure that Canada's education, surveillance and testing measures are truly indicative of their level of BSE risk. The bottom line is this. Canada has not achieved the necessary level of compliance with OIE rules to justify designating it as a minimal risk region. Canada's failure to enforce its BSE measures could have serious consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border. First and most obviously, it would create potential dangers for consumers in this country. Second, it would pose dangers for the health of our U.S. cattle herd. Third, even if we do not end up with BSE-tainted imports, the perception of heightened risk for consumers could have adverse economic consequences for the U.S. cattle industry. Finally, our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the U.S. I fear that reopening the border now, before we have reached agreement on reopening our export markets, will only give our trade partners an excuse to further delay reopening these critical markets for U.S. producers. Yesterday's announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 months of age is a small step in the right direction. However, this announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's compliance with its feed regulations, which has been cited as the primary basis for extending a Minimal-Risk Region designation to Canada. It was my hope that our new Secretary of Agriculture would withdraw the proposal to resume trade with Canada when he learned of these serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule from going forward is for the Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval. Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue on how to move forward in a way that will ensure the safety of the U.S. cattle herd and help open export markets. Our consumers and livestock producers deserve nothing less.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake. As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, six miles or approximately one- third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges. All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply. The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard that will take affect in 2006. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs. The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities mitigate the adverse consequences resulting from this ongoing flooding disaster. In my view, the Corps should be responsible for addressing the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation quickly so we can pass it this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake. As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, six miles or approximately one- third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges. All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply. The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard that will take affect in 2006. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs. The bill I am introducing today will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist communities mitigate the adverse consequences resulting from this ongoing flooding disaster. In my view, the Corps should be responsible for addressing the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation quickly so we can pass it this year.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm the nomination of Samuel Bodman to be the next Secretary of Energy. As Secretary of Energy, Mr. Bodman will face challenges that are critically important to our economy and our national security. We depend on a stable supply of energy to keep our economy moving. Yet, the United States continues to rely too heavily on oil imports from other parts of the world, especially the Middle East. We import about 55 percent of the oil we consume, and this percentage is expected to increase to 70 percent by 2025. Similarly, we are relying more and more on imports of natural gas. This dependency puts us at a strategic and economic disadvantage. The Secretary of Energy must work with the diverse energy interests, the administration, and the Congress to develop a comprehensive Energy bill that will move us toward energy independence. The Secretary of Energy position is especially important to North Dakota's energy producers and economy. North Dakota can be a significant supplier of electricity to the rest of the country. My State is blessed with an 800-year supply of lignite coal and the potential to be the biggest wind energy producer in the country. The main challenge we face is developing a transmission grid that will allow our electricity producers to fully utilize these resources and send power to the rest of the country. We need to invest significant new resources in finding new ways to upgrade and expand our transmission capacity and reliability. We also need to increase investment in, and more aggressively pursue, the development of clean coal technology. By reducing pollution from coal-burning power plants, clean coal technology will ensure that this plentiful, domestic source of energy remains a vital part of our national energy portfolio. The nomination of Samuel Bodman is encouraging. Mr. Bodman has proven himself to be an effective manager as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and Deputy Secretary of Commerce. In addition to his exemplary managerial skills, Mr. Bodman has the background knowledge and intellect to understand the importance of research on, and development of, advanced energy technologies. These technologies, including clean coal technology, will help us meet our country's energy challenges. I look forward to working with Mr. Bodman on the funding and development of grant programs to bring advanced technology to North Dakota's power producers and transmitters. Today I offer my support for Senate confirmation of Mr. Samuel Bodman as our next Secretary of Energy.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I plan to support Governor Michael O. Leavitt's nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS. Governor Leavitt is taking on a difficult role. There are many healthcare challenges facing our Nation. With over 300 separate programs and a budget of more than $400 billion per year, the Secretary of HHS is responsible for setting the healthcare agenda for the administration. It is my hope that implementing the Medicare prescription drug benefit will be at the top of Governor Leavitt's agenda. This large and complex law will have a tremendous impact on 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. As we get closer to January 1, 2006-- opening day for the drug benefit--HHS will have many important decisions to make. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt to ensure that North Dakota seniors get the options and information they need to make the best choice about the right drug benefit for them. Also, given his record, I hope Governor Leavitt will take an active role in addressing funding shortfalls in the rural healthcare system. Many of the provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act that erased the inequities that existed between rural and urban providers are due to expire in 2006 and 2007. I am committed to reauthorizing these important provisions and trust that Governor Leavitt will work with me towards this end. More generally, it is important that HHS and Congress look at other areas where healthcare needs are being unmet and take the appropriate steps to improve access to healthcare in rural America. For example, Congress should improve the financing of our rural emergency medical services. Our rural EMS squads are a vital component of the healthcare system, and current Medicare regulations do not adequately reimburse these squads for their services. This Congress, I intend to introduce legislation to improve the rural EMS system and hope that Governor Leavitt will support these efforts. As Governor of Utah during the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mr. Leavitt had extraordinary experiences with preparing for a possible bioterrorism attack that will aid him in his position as Secretary of HHS. Over the past years, I have pushed for the enactment of a national emergency telemedical communications system that could be used to more effectively respond to a bioterrorist attack on a regional level by using telehealth technologies. I look forward to working closely with Governor Leavitt to move this legislation forward. Finally, in his new role as Secretary, Governor Leavitt will be charged with preserving and protecting two of our Nation's most important health insurance programs--Medicaid and the State Children's Heal Insurance Program. It is important that Governor Leavitt be a strong advocate for these vital social programs. I look forward to working with Governor Leavitt in the coming years to improve healthcare for all Americans.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act. This legislation is very important for the expansion and competitiveness of the wind energy sector in North Dakota and the rest of the country. There should be no doubt that the wind energy production tax credit, PTC, is vital for the continued growth of the wind energy sector. The PTC was enacted in 1992. Delays in renewing the PTC have caused a boom- and-bust cycle in the development of new wind projects. These delays of the credit inhibit the development of a favorable and secure investment climate for wind projects and are also economically damaging as companies involved in wind energy lay off workers or put off hiring until the credit is extended. Given the long lead time required to develop new wind projects, short-term extensions of the credit do not give companies enough certainty to expand wind energy production. We need a long-term extension to provide that certainty. Wind energy is an important component of our Nation's energy portfolio. Wind is a clean source of energy that fosters economic development in rural communities. Combined with other domestic sources of energy, the use of wind energy helps reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. In addition, advanced wind energy technology could one day be an important component of a hydrogen-based economy. In order to ensure that wind power remains competitive with other fuels, passage of a longer-term wind PTC is necessary. In my home State, a long-term extension of the wind PTC is especially important. North Dakota is ranked number one in wind energy potential. As in other parts of the country, reliance on Congress to re-extend the wind PTC prevents companies tied to wind energy from adding workers and negotiating long-term contracts. In general terms, this uncertainty inflicts economic costs on communities and certain manufacturers. For North Dakota, a long-term wind PTC extension is vital to continue the development of wind energy resources that are second to none. The bill I am introducing today will extend the wind energy PTC, indexed to inflation, for five years. I believe that Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the wind energy sector in this country grows at its full potential. In my view, wind is a crucial part of our country's energy portfolio and energy security. This bill will help the wind energy industry grow and remain competitive with other types of energy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.