Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the highway bill conference report. I want to first applaud the chairman, my good friend Senator Inhofe, for all of his hard work on this important legislation. I also want to thank the ranking member of the EPW committee, Senator Jeffords, for his work on the bill. The highway bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Senate undertakes. This bill makes it possible to construct and repair vital transportation arteries that crisscross this great Nation. As our country grows we must be conscious of our transportation needs. Accordingly, this bill increases funding for road construction that will substantially reduce traffic delays that plague the country. Additionally, this bill substantially increases transit funding further reducing congestion and pollution caused by overpopulated highways. This bill will provide roughly $1.76 billion in funding for New Mexico over the next 5 years. The New Mexico projects that made it into this bill will be instrumental in continuing our push for economic development. The money for Double Eagle II Airport will play heavily in making this new facility a leader in aircraft manufacturing. Additionally, as our population continues to grow, the money for the extension of University Boulevard will allow this growing portion of Albuquerque direct access to other parts of the city. This bill also contains vital funding for the southern portion of New Mexico. This bill contains $5 million for reconstruction of NM-176. This road will be a key component in making the LES plant in Eunice a success. Finally, this bill provides $7 million for reconstruction of the I-10/I-25 interchange and $2 million for road work on I-10 itself. This bill also increases funding for the Indian Roads Program. I have advocated for increased Indian roads funding for a number of years and while this increase only begins to address the need, it will help immensely in addressing the economic development problems facing Indian Country. Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking member of the EPW Committee and their staff for doing a great job in getting this bill completed.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is obvious that I am two things tonight. First, I am very happy and I am very tired. I do not know which one I am more of, but I am both. I am sure there are many who think differently than I. I hope in the Senate there is an overwhelming number who think as I do. There will be some who do not. But after 6 years of effort in the Senate, and for a time period going back about 15 years, we have not had an energy policy program of any significance for the United States of America. When I say 6 years, we have been struggling for 6 years to get a current one, and 4 of those years we have produced them and they have failed. I have not been part of all of that, but I left the Budget Committee, the Senate might recall, after many years, with 2 years remaining to be there. That would have made my 30th year on the Budget Committee, and I still would have been chairman. I left it because this would be a nice challenge, and I thought maybe during the 6 years, as chairman of this committee, I might be party to putting together a bill that might do something about America's energy future. Everybody should know that the Senator from New Mexico knew that we would not do anything for tomorrow, nothing much. We would not have any answers for people who said, what are you going to do tomorrow morning or next week on the gasoline prices? But I did know that we had a chance of doing something that we could come to the floor and say within 5 to 10 years this bill will create jobs, job security, and clean energy. Now, if that can be done in the complicated maze that we call the energy policy of the United States--and let me repeat, the reason that we can say to Americans that they have more jobs, they will have job security and have cleaner energy being produced, I almost asked, and I will, who could ask for anything more? I think that is a song or something, but who could ask for anything more? So I start by saying I was very lucky today. I got a call from a reporter for the Albuquerque Tribune. I do not know him very well, but I speak to him occasionally, and I say to my friend from Tennessee, he asked me a neat question. He asked: Senator, people are talking about and maybe nitpicking this bill, and I want to ask you, what do you think things will look like in America with reference to energy 5 to 10 years from now? That was a terrific question because it permitted me to open my remarks tonight the way I should have over the last couple of months. For once, the Congress is going to do something important from which we as a Nation will benefit, not tomorrow but in the next 5 to 10 years. Certainly, we will begin to feel it in a big way within the next 5 to 10 years. One might say therefore that we could have put most of it off, and we probably would have eked along and would have had some difficult times, but we could have said, it will work out. But what we have done is to make sure that where we have the power, we have done something to make it better. I repeat, energy is the reason we have jobs. Energy is the reason we have warm homes, electricity, automobiles, everything we look at, humankind-made movement and activity, based on energy use. That means it is pretty important that we do it somewhat right. Some may say it will all work out. This is a great, powerful nation, everybody will wiggle and do this and do that and it will come out. Well, believe me, after a year and a half of learning, I think it would have been a real risk for America to say it will all work out. What we have done is very complicated. It is a lot more than people speaking about gasoline prices tomorrow morning. It is a lot more than that. So 5 to 10 years from now, we ought to look back and ask: Did this legislation make a real difference? I am going to start by saying something nobody cares about when they lobby us, but I am going to say that we are going to use less energy per person, per adult, per unit of our economy, sometimes called GDP, because of the efficiency and conservation provisions here than we would have without it. That means simple things, believe it or not, in an energy bill, such as the appliances in our kitchens, the motors used in manufacturing plants, the buildings we live in, and the houses we live in will be far more efficient and use far less energy 5 to 10 years from now than today. For everything we use less of, we need to burn less coal or produce less energy or electricity or import oil less. More of our electricity will come from renewable energy in 5 to 10 years, such as solar, biomass, wind, landfill gas, waste. All kinds of things that can produce energy in that manner will be coming on board or be on board. We have streamlined the tax provisions. The licensing processes for clean technologies like geothermal have been streamlined so we will get whatever we have instead of letting it be tied up forever. Then we are going to be making great strides toward reducing the carbon intensity of our economy. It is the carbon intensity of our economy that causes significant pollution, and for many it is a source of global warming. My colleagues do not have to believe that to vote for this, but what I am saying is that for those who do--and I am one--this bill will move us forward so that 5 to 10 years from now we can be saying we may have technology that will go after that carbon. One will be new nuclear powerplants. I say to the Senator from Idaho, if a nuclear powerplant cannot be built in America after this bill is signed, then I think the Senator and I, who have been ardent, devoted fans, will say it cannot be done. I think the Senator will agree with that. Everything that can be done reasonably will be there. The uncertainties will be eliminated. That which frightens investors will be eliminated. The other things are all in place. With reference to coal, we will have provided incentives and tax relief so that new technology will be developed to take carbon out of the coal that is burned and, yes, if we use the outside of my years, in 10 years we may, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, have found a way to sequester the carbon and indeed be on the way to being able to use our biggest resource, to wit, coal, without atmospheric damage, global damage, and with much cleaner effect. This bill might make that happen. As I say, when people think of the Energy bill, they think of cars, automobiles, but the electricity grid of the country--how many people on our committee thought we were going to learn about the electricity grid, such as when eastern America went black, but we found out. We have a great electricity system. When the blackout came, some people called this an ancient system. Some called it a one-horse system. No, it is the most refined. The problem is that the system was not tied together properly, and it did not have mandatory requirements for safety. So there were some good, some not so good. That transmission grid will be far more reliable because we have put on the grid owners mandatory standards for operating that grid. So I would say you will not have one of those after this bill gets implemented. That would have been good enough to pass a bill, but that is just a little part of the bill--one or two pages.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes. I ask Senator Bingaman, would that be all right?

Mr. DOMENICI. In addition, we will be building new transmission to move electricity around the Nation. When I say ``we,'' don't think the Government is going to do it. We are just going to make sure we give the incentive to get it done. Transmission to move electricity around the Nation, where it is needed the most--that is going to make our consumption more efficient. This bill repeals an ancient law. Some people wonder why it even mentioned it because it has a funny name and they would say what in the world does it have to do with energy, but it is called P-U-H-C-A, PUHCA. It is from the times when we had our Great Depression. It made it at least more difficult to get money invested in electricity and utility companies than it was in other enterprises. We have repealed that. We have made some provisions that mergers will not be damaged. But this should bring much more capital investment into the utility companies that make up this powerful institution, this entity called the grid of the United States. Most of us are aware of another thing, which the distinguished Senator, a new Member of the Senate and a new member of the committee, the Senator from Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, has put much in the public eye when he introduced a bill about natural gas. One of our biggest problems, and we surely ought to be as worried about it as we are about the price of gasoline tomorrow, is our dependence upon imported natural gas. It is such a terrific product, from the standpoint of our ambient air, and it used to be so cheap, as everybody here knows. But what happened is we used it for everything. Now, as we get in trouble with global warming, everybody who builds a plant uses natural gas. Not that it does not produce some carbon, but far less. And the price goes up. So it looks as if America, which is paying the highest price of any industrial nation in the world for natural gas, is about to put itself out of business. We could lose the fertilizer business, the plastics business, many manufacturing companies. They are already going overseas. People will come up here and blame free-trade agreements, or low pay overseas. That is not so. We do not have enough natural gas to keep the price steady or bring it down. We must have liquefied natural gas from overseas. It is terrible to admit it. I wish I were here saying we don't. We do. In the next 25 years we will have a crisis if that doesn't occur. We have modernized, streamlined, eliminated unnecessary delays in the ports we will be bringing to America that will be the source of distributing LNG. We have eliminated the unnecessary delays. That is terrifically important. Of the five most important things, one might say that would be one of them because we might hit 8, 10, 12, 15--one study says 23--new ports will be needed to use LNG in inland America. In other words, you locate them and then the gas can be put into pipelines and delivered to America's users. We permitted that to be done with more dispatch. For the first time, and we know this, since Americans began a love affair with the car, we are going to put in place an ethanol program. I ask for 5 additional minutes. People used to laugh at it. Let me put it this way. It is not too shabby, to put America's agricultural industry to work making fuel for vehicles. Some used to say that was foolish. It might have been when crude oil was $5 a barrel, or $10. But it certainly is a good investment when crude oil is this expensive because all you are doing is trading the investment in ethanol--plants, cement, steel, thousands of jobs, agricultural revitalization--every dollar you put in that is a dollar you didn't give to the Saudi Arabians or you didn't give to those who are selling us oil. You spent it here. We have a major new program, 7.5 million gallons mandated out here in the future. So that should be very helpful, in terms of jobs and helping with our importation. We also gave significant credits for hybrid automobiles. I think we all know we had that. We doubled it. We know people want them now. But we still put it in, the tax writers put it in, and we hope the manufacturers will see the demand and get more on board quickly. We think that was a contribution. I think overall we are going to try to produce as much of our energy domestically as possible. To do that we have streamlined the permitting processes where we can. For instance, the Senator from Colorado is on the Senate floor, and the Senators from Utah have been interested--we have a fantastic oil shale research and development program and provide leasing to see if we, one of these days, could implement the abundant oil resources from oil shale. Nobody knows if we could ever work that economically. If we could, we would not need any imported oil. We have more oil locked up in oil shale than America would use over 200 years. We just have to find a way to convert it. We are close. We are going to push that. We are deeply divided on global climate change. We have had a couple of votes. I will not go through them. But the legislation we are doing, while it does not address a global warming tax, will do more to develop and deploy a new generation of clean technology that will make our consumption cleaner and more environmentally friendly. If we ever do achieve a limit--say that, make the limit there--we may, indeed, have ready the technologies that could do it. Right now we are just saying, Do it. That is why Senator Craig gets up and says, How? Right? I am speaking for him--but how? Put everybody out of business? No. New technology we are going to try to get developed will clean the coal--take the carbon out of it, I should say. These are the kinds of things that are in this 1,200-page document. I want to close. I am a pretty experienced fellow around here. I want to say that I have never worked in the process on a difficult bill where there has been more openness and inclusiveness in my 32 years. Every step of this process this Senator has worked with the other Senator from New Mexico to ensure that we have a bipartisan bill. That doesn't mean that Senator Bingaman likes every provision. It doesn't mean that I like every provision. But nobody can say that anything was done in one closed back room, shoved down anybody's throat, or done without staff, excellent staff, on both sides working on it. I am thankful. Because of that, Senator Reid joined our leader and let us get this bill to the floor. We took 2 weeks. Heretofore we took 6 weeks, and still had 200 amendments left. We didn't get a bill, a real bill. Believe it or not, Representatives Dingell and Barton met. Ourselves, we spent 20-plus hours as a foursome. Then we had 3 days, 5 open days of conference meetings with amendments being offered. Every conferee could offer amendments. They were voted on, some won, some lost-- honestly most lost, but that is the way it is. They voted. The last of those conferences ended a couple of nights ago at 2:30 in the morning. I probably was more tired then than now, obviously. Maybe not as happy because I didn't know the product. But I think I know the product now. It is finished. It is a good product. It should pass overwhelmingly. I urge Senators to consider that this bill, and the future that it envisions, far outstrips anyone's individual parochial concern. I hate to say that because nobody is going to say that is why they vote against it. Nobody is going to say I didn't get some project or some one theme. But I think if you are looking at what might be good down the line--which maybe we ought to do more of--you ought to vote for this. One last comment. There will be a point of order made, and tonight I am going to say while everybody is around, or a few are: You heard a lot of numbers about what this bill costs. Please understand the point of order has to do with none of that. The point of order has to do with a simple thing. This committee was given $2 billion to spend, in direct spending, nonappropriated money. When all the work was done we estimated it was $2.2 billion--two billion two hundred million--not billion--$200 million. You know, the budget is hundreds of billions. This is $200 million. I don't even know why a point of order should be made. I am going to cheat and tell you, sometimes when I was budget chairman we rounded numbers to 100. I am confessing that belatedly. Maybe we would have rounded this one to 200. Anyway, that is what we are going to vote on. I hope, even if you are against the bill, you will let us vote whether or not the country should have this. With that, I thank the Senate, thank the Chair, and most important, thank the Senators here. For the Republican Senators, as soon as Senator Bingaman is through I will start allocating on our side 5, 7 minutes, whatever you each would like. Senator Bingaman will use what he wants and allocate the rest. He has one Senator. We will stay as long as you like. Thank you all for listening.

Mr. DOMENICI. I know Senator Kerry wants to speak, but I would like to ask that we may have time to arrange all of this right now. My next speaker is Senator Craig. I would like to yield 5 minutes to him and then we go to somebody on your side.

Mr. DOMENICI. I might ask the Democrat side, since we have two Senators with 5 minutes each, would it be fair to say we go back and forth with 5 minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. You have 30.

Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to limit you. You have an order. I am just talking about sequence.

Mr. DOMENICI. I did. I am wrong, so I am telling you you have 30; you are going to get 30. It is just a question of when.

Mr. DOMENICI. So what we are saying is the Senator from New Mexico can speak for 90 minutes. I don't want to do that. I want to let my Senators speak, so I would like to change that. If we don't change it, I will speak for 90 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I know I was. I would like to allocate if I could. If Senator Kerry is going to speak 30 minutes, I would like to have Senator Craig and Senator Thomas speak for 5 minutes each. That is 10 minutes. And then we go to Senator Kerry for his 30. Then we come back to Senator Alexander for his 5, and then we go back to Senator Wyden for as long as he would like.

Mr. DOMENICI. Is that fair enough, Senators?

Mr. DOMENICI. Fair enough. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will yield very soon to Senators. I make one observation and ask one question and then I will yield to my friend from Wyoming. First, fellow Senators, Senator Bingaman mentioned something about renewables. I failed to mention, while we did not accept the Bingaman amendment, the tax portion of this bill allocates the largest percentage, largest piece of the tax incentives to renewables, to wind. Some did not like that. Some think it is great. One of the Senators is here and smiling. He did not like that. But that means as much wind energy as you can throw for the next 3 years, as much as you can manufacture and use, will be manufactured and used. Hopefully during that period of time Senator Bingaman can return and speak more to the issue of longevity and continuity. I thank two people: Alex Flint, my staff director, and Bob Simon, the staff director of Senator Bingaman. It is fair to say they have become friends, too, just as my friend Senator Bingaman and I have. With that, we have the order for the next hour or so. I will leave for a while and leave it to one of my friends. Senator Murkowski is the last one, although we have not provided for her. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct. It is my understanding that the transfer of the matter under section 347(a)(2) does not affect or otherwise modify the standard for activities undertaken pursuant to Public Law 96-514. The Senate included language in section 107(b) of the Senate bill relating to mitigation of adverse effects that the managers have not adopted as unnecessary. It is the understanding of the managers that the Department of the Interior is interpreting the current standard in the manner set forth in the Senate language.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would be happy to. Senator Bingaman is correct. We had agreed upon text for insertion into the managers' statement on a number of provisions, but it was left out in order to file the conference report in time for us to complete our work this week. I agree that those explanations should be placed on the record for the information of all Senators.

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman is correct. Section 210 was specifically drafted to address the concern he identified by focusing on nonmerchantable biomass that would not otherwise be used. It was our intent that the Secretaries implement the grant programs with sensitivity to alternative uses--both current and future--for the byproducts of preventive treatments, to the affects of other grants or support for encouraging the use of forest biomass that are provided pursuant to any other authority, and to the potential for alternative uses to provide a greater return to the taxpayer in the long run.

Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to, Mr. President. The managers recognized the large supply of energy resources existing on Indian lands, as well as the desire of many Tribes to increase access to those resources. The Indian Energy title is designed to provide economic development opportunities to Indian tribes by assisting and empowering them to develop and utilize tribal energy resources in a manner that meets the needs of Indian country and the Nation as a whole. The title will also continue and strengthen efforts to improve access to electricity for native people who are ten times more likely to be without such access than their counterparts residing outside of Indian reservations. Of particular note, is the creation of a new Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy that is dedicated to working with Indian tribes on energy development matters. The Title also creates a new program in section 503 related to energy leases, agreements, and rights-of-way on tribal lands that continues a policy of promoting tribal self-determination while preserving the trust relationship between Tribes and the Federal Government. The leases, agreements, and rights-of-way section preserves the full application of Federal environmental laws while authorizing eligible Tribes to approve individual energy projects without duplicative Federal approvals. The title contains several other provisions, all of which the managers believe will provide significant benefits to Indian country.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems. In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began in 1999. The drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental groups to file the lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court. After the district court issued a decision, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held that the Endangered Species Act required that water should be taken away from municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico, the ruling rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those who are entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande. In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of the program is especially marked when one considers that the program has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision making hierarchy, and formal authorization. I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource management challenges. I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman, who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in the American West, we are frequently faced with the challenge of how best to allocate our scarce water resources among numerous competing interests. There is no better example of this challenge than the one that has developed in the past six years in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in my home State of New Mexico. However, how this challenge was addressed is illustrative of what can be accomplished when people are willing to put adversity and divergent interests aside and work together to solve common problems. In 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed as endangered the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, a fish native to the waters of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The listing was followed by a five-year drought which began in 1999. The drought resulted in an insufficient amount of water to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow and led several environmental groups to file the lawsuit Minnow v. Keys in Federal district court. After the district court issued a decision, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which held that the Endangered Species Act required that water should be taken away from municipalities, farmers and industry in order to meet the needs of the Silvery Minnow. In a water-scarce State like New Mexico, the ruling rang out like a gun shot and created acrimony amongst those who are entirely dependant on water from the Rio Grande. In response, I established the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program in 2000. The program is based on the premise that it is better to work in the spirit of cooperation to develop solutions to shared problems regarding resource management including how best to meet the needs of our endangered species. When left up to the courts, there are always losers. Since 2000, the collaborative program has been a remarkable success, bringing together various stakeholders including Federal and State agencies, cities, Pueblos, environmental groups, farmers and business interests in an effort to protect our biological heritage and ecological diversity while meeting the needs of those who are dependant on the waters of the Rio Grande. Often, the process has been difficult. However, I'm sure all would agree that it is far preferable to the alternative of continued litigation. The success of the program is especially marked when one considers that the program has lacked specific goals, an organizational structure, a decision making hierarchy, and formal authorization. I rise today to introduce the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Act, a bill to provide the program with the authority it needs to continue its important mission. This bill would streamline the decision making process of the program, delegate responsibilities among federal agencies, and provide adequate authority for Federal participation. I have no doubt that this program will continue to serve as a model of how to deal with the West's resource management challenges. I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague Senator Bingaman, who I have had the pleasure of serving with in the United States Senate for the past 22 years for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and to strengthen the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 109th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the Nation to address the higher education needs of our constituencies and it is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the Improving Educational Opportunities for All Act. This bill will make changes to definitions located within title II, teacher quality enhancement grants, and title V, the development institutions sections of the Higher Education Act. When the Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1998, Congress responded to the Nation's critical need for high-quality teachers by creating grants to help States invest in the recruitment, preparation, licensing, and support of teachers. Title II of the Higher Education Act, the teacher quality enhancement grants initiative, encourages States to improve the quality of their teaching force through such reforms as strengthening teacher certification standards; holding institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers with strong teaching skills and knowledge of their content areas; and reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need areas. I believe that these grants have been very effective in meeting their goals, but I also want to make sure that this money is targeted to our highest need local education agencies. The changes I am proposing to title II of the Higher Education Act will enhance the definition of high need local education agencies to include local education agencies that have a high percentage of students who are minority or of limited English proficiency, residing in rural areas as defined by the Bureau of Census, or have high percentages of Naive American students. Nationwide, studies show the most disadvantaged children are the ones most likely to be taught by the newest, least-qualified and lowest- scoring teachers. We need to attract good teachers who are committed to their profession, and reward teachers who are qualified and want to teach in areas of most critical need. We need teachers to be well- prepared to teach all students to the highest standards and I hope that the changes I am proposing will help States develop and implement programs to meet these needs. Another positive addition to the Higher Education Act, has been the creation of title V grants to developing institutions. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs. HSI's use grants under this section to strengthen academic quality, improve institutional management, and increase financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students. Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under title V, an institution must, have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. The first change I am proposing is a change to title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement. I believe that this requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic serving institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no Government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the title V forms. The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for title IV, need-based, aid. The revised title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell grants. Another unnecessary regulation under title V is the minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. Title V's 2-year wait out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2-year wait out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic serving institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait out period for tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black colleges and universities also do not have a wait out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait out period for Hispanic serving institutions. Hispanic serving institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic serving institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development. I know that the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee have been working very hard on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I appreciate their efforts, and hope they will consider making the changes I am recommending. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and to strengthen the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 109th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the Nation to address the higher education needs of our constituencies and it is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the Improving Educational Opportunities for All Act. This bill will make changes to definitions located within title II, teacher quality enhancement grants, and title V, the development institutions sections of the Higher Education Act. When the Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1998, Congress responded to the Nation's critical need for high-quality teachers by creating grants to help States invest in the recruitment, preparation, licensing, and support of teachers. Title II of the Higher Education Act, the teacher quality enhancement grants initiative, encourages States to improve the quality of their teaching force through such reforms as strengthening teacher certification standards; holding institutions of higher education accountable for preparing teachers with strong teaching skills and knowledge of their content areas; and reducing shortages of qualified teachers in high-need areas. I believe that these grants have been very effective in meeting their goals, but I also want to make sure that this money is targeted to our highest need local education agencies. The changes I am proposing to title II of the Higher Education Act will enhance the definition of high need local education agencies to include local education agencies that have a high percentage of students who are minority or of limited English proficiency, residing in rural areas as defined by the Bureau of Census, or have high percentages of Naive American students. Nationwide, studies show the most disadvantaged children are the ones most likely to be taught by the newest, least-qualified and lowest- scoring teachers. We need to attract good teachers who are committed to their profession, and reward teachers who are qualified and want to teach in areas of most critical need. We need teachers to be well- prepared to teach all students to the highest standards and I hope that the changes I am proposing will help States develop and implement programs to meet these needs. Another positive addition to the Higher Education Act, has been the creation of title V grants to developing institutions. Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs. HSI's use grants under this section to strengthen academic quality, improve institutional management, and increase financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students. Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under title V, an institution must, have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. The first change I am proposing is a change to title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement. I believe that this requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic serving institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no Government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the title V forms. The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for title IV, need-based, aid. The revised title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell grants. Another unnecessary regulation under title V is the minimum 2-year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. Title V's 2-year wait out period impedes Hispanic Serving Institutions efforts to implement continuing programs with long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Eliminating the 2-year wait out period will be of great importance to equipping our Nation's Hispanic serving institutions with the continuous funding that they need to best answer complex challenges. In 2000, Congress eliminated the wait out period for tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions. Historically Black colleges and universities also do not have a wait out period. It is now time for us to eliminate the wait out period for Hispanic serving institutions. Hispanic serving institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home State of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic serving institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development. I know that the chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee have been working very hard on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I appreciate their efforts, and hope they will consider making the changes I am recommending. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to make my colleagues aware of an important achievement by the Bush administration to secure an agreement with the Russian Government to ensure that a major nonproliferation program moves forward. This agreement will resolve the longstanding disagreement on liability associated with the construction of Mixed Oxide, MOX, Fuel Fabrication Facility in Russia. This agreement will permit the U.S. and Russia to move forward with the construction of dual MOX fuel fabrication facilities to turn weapons-grade plutonium into civilian mixed-oxide fuel that can be burned in commercial nuclear reactors. Each side will dispose of 34 tons of excess plutonium. Today the U.S.-Russian counterparts will agree to the terms of an agreement negotiated during the G8 summit in Scotland earlier this month. It was during this summit in which terrorists attempted to disrupt the meeting by setting off simultaneous explosions in the London subway, killing over 40 innocent victims. This senseless violence underscores the importance of eliminating the possibility, however remote, that terrorists might secure and use plutonium or highly enriched uranium in their acts of terror against civilian or military targets. As we see the world become more and more dangerous, it is critical that we make progress on reprocessing plutonium into MOX. Black marketers and terrorists would love to get their hands on this plutonium. President Bush has worked hard to engage President Putin on this issue, and as a result of that continuing dialogue there is now an agreement to implement a MOX program. I am very pleased that this agreement has been made because it will give us a surefire way to dispose of weapons-grade material while at the same time providing economic benefits to both countries. I am hopeful the Russian Duma will take quick action. This agreement breaks a 2-year diplomatic impasse that has stalled the construction of fuel fabrication facilities in the United States and Russia. I would like to recognize the efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Under Secretary of State John Bolton, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, and the entire Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation within the NNSA. Both the State Department, which negotiated the diplomatic solutions, and the Department of Energy, which has responsibility for managing the design, construction, and operation of the Nation's first plutonium reprocessing plant, have been exceptional. Both teams have worked hard to realize the ultimate goal of eliminating 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from each of the U.S. and Russian stockpiles. Over the past year I have pressed the Department of Energy and the State Department to resolve the liability issue. Upon their confirmations, both Secretary Rice and Secretary Bodman have committed their full support, and they should be proud of their early success. The effort to address the elimination of excess weapons-grade material has been under consideration for over a decade. President George Bush's term initiated the earliest efforts to identify excess weapons-grade material. Over the next decade, the Clinton administration worked with then-President Yeltsin to consider options for eliminating excess material. In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences', NAS, report on the ``Management and Disposition of Excess Weapons Plutonium'' found that excess material constituted a ``clear and present danger.'' That same year a joint DOE-DOD review found that 38.2 metric tons of plutonium and 174.3 metric tons of highly enriched uranium were surplus to U.S. defense needs. A programmatic environmental impact statement was undertaken to evaluate options for disposal of this material. In 1995, U.S. and Russian experts met at Los Alamos to provide recommendations on plutonium disposition. Since those early meetings the labs have contributed a considerable amount of time and effort to support this initiative. In fact, Los Alamos prepared the plutonium that is being used as the initial test fuel assembly currently being burned in the Catawba reactor owned by Duke Power. In April 1996, at the Moscow Nuclear Safety and Security Summit, it was determined that irradiating plutonium as part of a mixed oxide fuel in commercial reactors and vitrification are appropriate strategies for disposal. In June 1997, the Independent Holdren-Velikhov Commission issued a final report recommending a disposal pathway identified at the Moscow Summit. The report is a joint U.S. and Russian National Academy of Science review. In July 1998, the U.S. and Russia signed a Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement that provides for a joint, small-scale test of disposition pathways. This agreement also provided a 5-year liability agreement between the United States. and Russia for coverage of U.S. workers in Russia that expired in July 2003. In September 1998, President Clinton and President Yeltsin entered into a bilateral plutonium disposition agreement. In October 1998, I included $200 million in ``emergency'' funding dedicated entirely to plutonium disposition to demonstrate to Russia the firm U.S. commitment to plutonium disposition. This funding persuaded Russia to enter into serious negotiations. Today, $150 million of those funds remains available for use to initiate construction. That same month, G8 members established the Multilateral Plutonium Disposition Group and committed to international financing of the Russian plutonium program. As of January 2005, total pledges from the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan, Italy, and France total $865 million. I am confident that with the liability issue resolved additional funding will be made available to support the Russian effort. The U.S. will fulfill its commitment to build the U.S facility on it own. In March 1999, the U.S. awarded the MOX facility contract to Duke Cogema Stone and Webster--DCS--to design the U.S. MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. In August, DOE awarded a contract to design the Pit Disassemble and Conversion Facility. In January 2000, DOE issued a Record of Decision on locating the pit conversion and fuel fabrication facility at Savannah River, SC. In September 2000, the United States and Russia signed the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, which calls for each country to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium in parallel. It was agreed that construction would begin by 2003. Unfortunately, one item left unresolved in that agreement was the question of liability protection for the U.S. for work performed in Russia. In January 2001, the Bush administration began a year-long review of all nonproliferation programs with Russia. During this review, the contracting team submitted a construction authorization request to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval. January 2002, the administration decided to pursue a MOX-only pathway and put an end to further work on a vitrification program. In September 2002, MINATOM, the Russian counterpart to the Department of Energy, agreed to use an identical design of the U.S. proposed MOX facility. In July 2003, the temporary 5-year limited liability coverage provided under the 1998 Science and Technical Cooperation Agreement expired. In February 2004, without a formal agreement on liability, the U.S. announced a delay in the program. Plans to initiate construction in May 2004 were delayed until May 2005. August 2004, the Russians begin site characterization work at the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk, Russia, as a location of the MOX facility. The site has been cleared and is awaiting construction. Unlike the Savannah River site, which has a year-round construction season, the Seversk site is limited to work in the summer. In September 2004, Los Alamos shipped 125 kilograms of surplus plutonium to France for fabrication into MOX fuel assemblies for a test burn in a commercial U.S. reactor. This activity is undertaken in France since the design of the U.S and Russian fuel fabrication facility is identical to the French facility that is currently reprocessing spent commercial fuel for European and Asian customers. The shipments between the U.S. and France occurred without incident and the lead test assemblies are now being used in the Catawba reactor owned and operated by Duke Power. In December 2004, the engineering team completed the licensable design of the U.S facility, and the NRC awarded the construction permit for the U.S. facility in March 2005. On April 20, 2005, the U.S. offered a new liability agreement that was ultimately accepted by the Russian Government in July 2005. It took several months of intense lobbying to pressure the U.S. interagency process to produce a liability agreement that was not identical to the liability terms provided under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Agreement. On July 19, 2005, the United States and Russia agreed to the terms of a final liability package. This agreement must go to President Putin to be drafted and published as a Presidential decree. Once circulated, Secretary Rice and her counterpart in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will officially sign the agreement, which will then go to the Russian Duma for ratification. Once this document is signed by Secretary Rice, the Department of Energy will move forward with a site clearing activities in Savannah River, SC, with construction to commence in fiscal year 2006. I am proud of the fact that two different administrations have followed through on this bilateral initiative, and we are now approaching another critical juncture. Following a decade of successful and numerous scientific, environmental and regulatory reviews, we are at a stage where it is important that Congress maintain an adequate and reliable level of funding to complete construction. I am aware of the fact that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have reduced funding for MOX construction but have preserved the funding within other nonproliferation accounts. I am hopeful that during the consideration of the Senate defense authorization bill, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin will agree to restore the funding back into the MOX construction accounts. In addition, I am hopeful that I will be successful in convincing the House to restore critical funding that was eliminated from the MOX construction program. Of the $360 million requested for construction, the House only provided $35 million. Failure to provide adequate funding would undermine a decade of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia and do nothing to reduce the amount of excess plutonium. If we are unable to fully fund the construction program and keep the project on track it will prevent the U.S. from consolidating plutonium across the weapons complex and could result in a $100 million per year penalties to be paid to the State of South Carolina as mandated in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act. We have come too far to not complete this project. I have believed in this initiative from the beginning and believe we can do more to reduce the threat from nuclear proliferation. I am committed to seeing additional resources be used in securing Russian warheads beyond the reach of terrorists. I am committed to strong enforcement by the U.S. or International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to break up the nuclear black market, where nuclear technology and scientific expertise can be bought for a price. The stakes are too high and the price too great to consider anything but an aggressive effort by the U.S. and our global partners to prevent the spread of nuclear material.