Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What would the Senator from New Mexico propose?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has made some excellent points. I very much appreciate them. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 5 minutes to the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was 13 years old when I saw this picture. When we discuss nuclear weapons, this is the picture I remember. The only country on Earth that has ever used nuclear weapons is our own. It has been debated ever since whether this was positive because it saved American troops and ended the war or whether it has launched our country and other countries into a race which well could prove disastrous for all of us. This is a photograph of Hiroshima after the nuclear bomb was dropped on the city on August 6, 1945. Mr. President, 80,000 people died from the initial blast and 60,000 people died from radiation poisoning, for a total of 140,000 people dead. And that bomb was 15 kilotons. The second photograph is of Nagasaki after August 9, 1945. Approximately 75,000 of the city's 240,000 residents were killed instantly. In total, approximately 100,000 people died in the blast. I rise today once again to address a critical issue that is related to the security of the American people and our nuclear proliferation efforts: the renewed push by this administration to reopen the nuclear door, including funding for a 100-kiloton nuclear bunker buster. I have argued this on the Senate floor before, that such actions, combined with the policy of unilateralism and preemption, run counter to our values and nonproliferation efforts and put U.S. national security interests and American lives at risk. Therefore, those of us who are cosponsors of this amendment wish to delete the $4 million, for the study and development of the robust nuclear earth penetrator. The amendment redirects the funds for debt reduction. The time has come for this Senate, like the House has done in this bill, to send a clear and unambiguous message to the White House and the Pentagon: We will not support funding for programs to develop new nuclear weapons. Congress made a strong statement last year in deleting funding for the development of this nuclear bunker buster by eliminating $27.5 million for the bunker buster, $9 million for the advanced concepts initiative, which included the study of the development of low-yield weapons. This action was due in no small part to the leadership of Representative David Hobson, chairman of the House Appropriations Energy Committee. The House took a strong position of opposition and they are to be commended. In fact, the House removed new nuclear weapons from all bills, including the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense authorization bill, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense appropriations bill, and the 2006 Energy appropriations bill. This was a consequential victory for those of us who believe the United States sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world by reopening the nuclear door and beginning the testing and development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. That is why I was so disappointed to learn that the administration requested funds this year to resume the nuclear earth penetrator study. As a matter of fact, this year Secretary Rumsfeld asked the Department of Energy to place the $4 million in the energy budget and $4.5 million in the defense budget, thereby splitting the amount requested for the bunker buster. He hoped to weaken opposition and split the budget between two Departments so that if it could not get funding in one, he could get it in the other. The House had the foresight to reject this idea and has reasserted its determination not to move forward with the bunker buster study. During its markup on the 2006 Defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee eliminated all the Department of Energy funding for the RNEP, and transferred the $4 million to the Air Force budget for work on a conventional nonnuclear version of the bunker buster. The House Armed Services Committee member, Silvestre Reyes, stated: The committee took the ``N,'' or ``nuclear,'' out of the RNEP program. Following the Armed Services Committee action, Chairman Hobson and Representative Ellen Tauscher led the effort to eliminate the Department of Energy funding of $4 million for the bunker buster in its markup in the 2006 Energy and Water appropriations bill. That bill also eliminated funding for the modern pit facility and banned site selection for the facility in 2006. Finally, the House 2006 Defense appropriations bill limits research for a bunker buster to a conventional program. These three actions by authorizers and appropriators, Republicans and Democrats alike, have dealt another blow to the administration's plans to develop new nuclear weapons and reinforced the clear intent of Congress that we should not go down that path because it will only encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent. Why should the Senate continue to fund programs that are rapidly losing support in the House and the administration? Now the Senate has an opportunity to follow the House's lead. Senator Kennedy and I and others have come to the floor to offer this amendment to do just that. During previous debates on this issue, we have argued that according to the laws of physics, it is simply not possible for a missile casing on a nuclear warhead to survive a thrust into the earth to take out a hard and deeply buried military target without spewing millions of tons of cubic feet of radiation into the atmosphere. Consider this: A 1- kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 25 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. Given the insurmountable physics problems associated with burrowing a warhead deep into the earth, one would need a weapon with more than 100 kilotons of yield to destroy an underground target at a depth of 1,000 feet. Now let me explain. The maximum feasible depth of a bunker buster is 35 feet. At that depth, a 100-kiloton bunker buster would scatter 100 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the atmosphere. There is no known missile casing that can survive a 1,000-foot thrust into the Earth and avoid overwhelming and catastrophic consequences. That is a fact. There is not a single scientist who will say that. The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration agrees. At the March 2, 2005, House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher asked Ambassador Linton Brooks, the following question: I just want to know is there any way a [robust nuclear earth penetrator] of any size that we would drop would not produce a huge amount of radioactive debris? The Ambassador replied: No, there is not. When Congresswoman Tauscher asked him how deep he thought a bunker buster could go, he answered: . . . a couple of tens of meters, maybe. I mean certainly-- I must apologize for my lack of precision if we in the administration have suggested that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. I don't believe that--I don't believe the law of physics will ever let that be true. Here is the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration saying there is no way one can drive a missile casing deep enough to prevent radioactive spewing. Let me just show what this means. For a 100-kiloton weapon, one would have to drive it 800 feet deep into the earth to contain the nuclear fallout. One can only drive it a small distance: 35 feet. So the result is 1.5 million tons of radioactivity. If it is 5 kilotons, one would have to drive it 320 feet. One could only drive it 35 feet. The spewing of radioactive debris is 200,000 tons. If it is 1 kiloton, one would have to drive it 220 feet. One could only drive it 35 feet and the radioactivity is 60,000 tons. If it is .2 kilotons, one would have to drive it 120 feet. One can only drive it 35 feet, and the radioactive spewing is 25,000 tons. This is not from me. This is the National Academy of Sciences, nuclear scientists, physicists, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration. There is widespread agreement about this. So why are we doing it? On April 27, the National Academies of Sciences study commissioned by Congress to study the anticipated health and environmental effects of the Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapon found that current experience and empirical predictions indicate that the Earth-penetrating weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion. It would take a 300-kiloton weapon at a penetration of 3 meters, or 10 feet, to destroy hard and deeply buried targets at 200 meters, or 656 feet. To destroy a hard and deeply buried target at 300 meters you would need a 1-megaton weapon--not kiloton, megaton. The number of casualties from an Earth penetrator weapon detonated at a few meters depth is, for all practical purposes, equal to that of a surface burst of the same weapon yield. That is what the National Academies of Sciences studies say. For attacks near or in densely populated areas, using Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapons on hard and deeply buried targets, the number of casualties can range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield. The bottom line is that a bunker buster cannot penetrate into the Earth deeply enough to avoid massive casualties and the spewing of millions of cubic feet of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. It would result in the death of up to a million people or more if used in a densely populated area. This chart shows that. The source is the National Resources Defense Council and the EPA. What it shows is the predicted radioactive fallout from a B61-11 300-kiloton explosion in West Pyongyang, North Korea, using historical weather data for the month of May. Here is the blast, here is Seoul, here is the radioactive fallout. Why are we doing this? It makes no sense. I think this is the strongest evidence to date that we should not move forward with this study and that we should put a stop to it once and for all. In reality, this has never been about a study. It has been about the intent of this administration to develop new nuclear weapons. While the administration is silent this year on how much it plans to spend on the program in the future, last year's budget request totaled $485 million on the robust nuclear earth penetrator over 5 years. This 5-year figure was omitted this year. Let's look, for a brief moment, at the policies underlying this request, for they, too, have not been changed. The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review places nuclear weapons----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Murray and Senator Byrd for working tirelessly with me to try and find a solution to the VA budget crisis that faces our Nation's veterans. I very much appreciate their leadership on this issue. During the emergency supplemental under Senator Murray's leadership we brought this issue before the body and warned of the impending crisis. As we all know, at that point Secretary Nicholson sent a letter to Chairman Hutchison stating that ``I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that is always our goal.'' We now know this is not the case. Yesterday, Secretary Nicholson testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and acknowledged that in fact the VA is at least $1 billion short this year in veterans' medical care. The VA is resorting to shifting funds from capital accounts as well as spending money budgeted as carry over for next year to make up the shortfall. Additionally, the Secretary stated that the VA budget request for next year is short by at least $1.5 billion. As I have always stated, the care for our veterans should never get tangled up in partisan gamesmanship. This is why we have been working hard with our Republican colleagues to find a solution to this problem. I am pleased that the modifying amendment would add an additional $80 million to help shore up this year's budget problems at the VA, and I commend Senator Hutchison, my chairman on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, for her leadership and commitment to the needs of America's veterans. However, let us not forget that while the emergency funds that I hope we will pass today helps solve the problem for this year, Secretary Nicholson testified yesterday that the budget request for next year is insufficient as well. I am hopeful that the administration will take the necessary steps to transmit to the Congress an amended budget which provides an accurate estimate of the VA's needs for fiscal year 2006, and a realistic blueprint for meeting those needs. I look forward to working with Senator Hutchison, Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd and my other colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to make sure that we provide sufficient funding in 2006 to keep the VA from being awash in red ink again next year. Let me close by again thanking Senator Murray and Senator Byrd. Their leadership has been instrumental in helping to solve this problem. I also want to thank Senator Hutchison and Senator Craig for working hard with us to try and ensure that veterans receive the care they need.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran to establish a Memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Washington Mall. A memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. in the heart of the Nation's Capital is a fitting tribute to a man whose vision and courage transformed the face of our Nation. Only a short distance from us here in the Capitol, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous ``I Have A Dream'' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. His inspirational words resonated with many Americans and helped spark the civil rights movement. Dr. King started as a civil rights leader during the Montgomery bus boycott. Despite the bombings, arrests, and violence that Dr. King faced as a leader of this boycott, he continued to push for change. The Montgomery bus boycott successfully brought the glaring inequities facing African Americans to the fore of the American consciousness. In response to the boycott, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on intrastate busses. However, as we know, Dr. King did not stop with this one legal victory. Dr. King continued to tirelessly advocate for the principles of nonviolent protest as a means of addressing the injustices facing African Americans. Even in the face of tremendous opposition and cynicism, Dr. King persevered and helped concentrate the civil right movement's momentum for change. It is largely due to Dr. King's efforts that Congress rightly passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Over 4 decades later, I believe we are coming closer day by day to achieving Dr. King's dream, but still, more progress must be made. To memorialize Dr. King's dream here in our Nation's Capital would serve as a powerful reminder of the strides we have made but the steps we must still take together as a nation to weed out inequity. I am pleased to have the opportunity to cosponsor this amendment with Senators Byrd and Cochran to honor this great individual with a memorial in Washington, DC. The $10 million authorized by this amendment will help expedite the building of this memorial, which shall serve to remind future generations of Dr. King's sacrifices and his lasting legacy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record immediately following this statement. Amendment No. 1003

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment that I am sponsoring with Senators Murray and Byrd, to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with an additional $1.42 billion in emergency funding to shore up dramatic new shortfalls in the VA health care system. Our soldiers are returning home from Iraq and the front lines of the War on Terror by the hundreds, to begin their transition back to civilian life--and they deserve our assistance and respect. In California alone, there have been nearly 100,000 men and women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, all of whom will be eligible for at least two years of VA medical services when they return. Over 1,400 Californians have been wounded during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these recent veterans suffered injuries that will require specialty care for the rest of their lives. Moreover, many of our combat veterans could have mental wounds we are not even aware of yet. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office in September of last year found that: Mental health experts predict that because of the intensity of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan 15 percent or more of the servicemembers returning from these conflicts will develop post-traumatic stress disorder--PTSD.'' This is in addition to the veterans currently accessing the VA health care system. And now, we have learned that the VA's budget forecast projections did not adequately provide for soldiers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. How, if we know this, can we sit by and insist that there is no problem? This budget crunch is not just on paper. In San Diego County alone, 4,000 more veterans have been treated by the VA this year as compared to last, and we are still three months from the end of the fiscal year. This includes over 1,700 soldiers returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, the number of backlogs for appointments is growing, leading to longer wait times for veterans. And the Los Angeles Times reported on March 20, 2005, that over the last decade, the VA hospital in Los Angeles has reduced the capacity of in-patient psychiatric beds from 450 to 90. Meanwhile, over the same 10 years, Los Angeles has seen an increase of 28 percent in mental health patients. The crunch is coming and we need to start preparing. This amendment starts the preparation. But I want to be crystal clear, this amendment only addresses needs this year. Much more work will need to be done in fiscal year 2006. It appears that the fiscal year 2006 VA budget request also made use of similar data forecasting as this year's, making it highly probable that we will see a repeat of this shortfall next year. Secretary Nicholson testifies today before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and acknowledge that the fiscal year 2006 budget request is insufficient. We look forward to the Administration's budget amendment for fiscal year 06 to deal with this problem. Clearly, we will have a lot of work to do in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process. In the meantime, this amendment would add needed funding this year and help to alleviate the budget problems we are seeing in VA hospitals across the country. In closing, I would only add that this is not a Democrat issue and this is not a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to the very heart of how we treat those men and women who have fought bravely on behalf of our nation and we need to be unified in showing them our support. I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. FEINSTEIN

Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I start by thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work on this bill. They said they were going to work to get a bipartisan bill and they accomplished their goal. Overall, however, I believe that this Energy bill will help the country meet its energy needs in a number of important ways. This bill provides strong consumer protections, aggressive energy efficiency standards, and a focus on new technologies to meet our energy needs in a more environmentally friendly manner. Additionally, the bill takes a step in the right direction to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, especially natural gas. This is a major improvement over past Energy bills, which have done nothing to reduce our use of fossil fuels. As we learned during the Western energy crisis, Federal energy regulators did not have enough authority to prevent widespread market manipulation. Through the course of the crisis in California, the total cost of electricity soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and $26.7 billion in 2001. The abuse in our energy markets was pervasive and unlawful. So I am pleased to report that this bill includes provisions that I have sought over the past 4 years to strengthen consumer protections and hopefully prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West. These consumer protections include: a broad ban on manipulation in the energy markets; stronger criminal and civil penalties in the energy markets to provide stronger deterrents to violations of Federal energy laws; elimination of the unnecessary 60-day waiting period for refunds at FERC, which may cost Californians millions of dollars; new provisions to make the energy markets more transparent; and a ban on traders who manipulated the natural gas or the electricity markets from ever trading in energy markets again. I am also very pleased that Senators Grassley and Baucus included in the Energy bill much of the energy efficiency tax incentives that Senator Snowe and I sponsored. The simplest, most effective thing we could do today to reduce our electricity use would be to use more energy-efficient appliances, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers. We know that energy efficiency works. In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption increased 50 percent. During the Western energy crisis, California faced energy shortages and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and helped ease the crisis. By creating incentives to reduce demand, the energy efficiency tax incentives will help us avoid power shortages and blackouts in the future. In addition, encouraging more efficient technologies will also reduce pollution and save consumers billions of dollars in the long run. America cannot solve its energy challenges by simply adding more supplies. We must find ways to reduce demand for energy and create more efficient technologies. Including the energy efficiency tax incentives is a big step in the right direction. For all of those reasons, I am supporting this bill. However, I still have some major reservations about the legislation as it now stands. Among them are: Ethanol. The bill includes an 8 billion gallon mandate for ethanol when my State does not need it to meet clean air standards. I think this mandate is bad and costly public policy. LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. I believe States should have a strong voice in this process. Global Warming. Although we can already see the real effects of global warming, this bill takes no effective action to curb greenhouse gases. Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed. Essentially, this bill takes no risks whatsoever to do the right thing. And though I will vote in favor of this bill, I would like to discuss these serious reservations that I have with it. I am extremely concerned about the bill's 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate. First, though, I would like to thank the committee for accepting an amendment I offered to protect California's air quality. It waives the requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up polluting the air more than protecting it. Despite this win for California's air quality, I still have concerns about the impacts of mandating that refiners use 8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. President Bush has said over the past few months that this Energy bill will not do anything to reduce gas prices at the pump. I would like to add another note of caution: I hope this bill does not actually increase the price at the pump for consumers. According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices in California have been anywhere between 4 and 8 cents higher since ethanol replaced MTBE in California's gasoline, starting in 2003. In May 2005, the Director of the Petroleum Division at the Energy Information Administration stated before the House Government Reform Committee that: . . . refiners lost production capability when replacing MTBE with ethanol. This, along with continued demand growth, has contributed to price pressures. From 2000 through 2002, California retail gasoline prices averaged about 19 cents per gallon more than the U.S. average gasoline price, but in 2003 as MTBE began to be removed, California prices averaged 27 cents per gallon higher than the U.S. average, and remained at that level through 2004. So far this year, California's gasoline prices are at least 23 cents higher than the national average. To be clear, adding ethanol to our gasoline has increased the cost at the pump. In addition, when the 8 billion gallon mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-half of 1 percent. Since ethanol has a somewhat lower energy content than gasoline, more of it is required to travel the same distance. This results in a vehicle's fuel economy being approximately 3 percent lower with ethanol-blended gasoline. Further, this provision is both a mandate and a subsidy. Ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. An 8 billion gallon mandate means a $2 billion loss to the U.S. Treasury over today's receipts. I do not believe that we should be imposing this huge mandate at a time when there is already such a huge subsidy to the ethanol industry, and when the Nation has such huge budget deficits. We should have either the subsidy or the mandate, but not both. I also remain concerned about the provision in the bill that provides exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Increased demand for natural gas means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us. States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located. For LNG facilities that are sited more than 3 miles offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project. Yet for facilities that are located onshore, in our busy ports and near our closely packed communities, States have less input. That is why I offered an amendment to provide Governors the same authority for siting onshore facilities that they already have for offshore facilities. To give a remote Federal agency control when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site is a mistake. I firmly believe that States should have the right to veto a project that could endanger the public safety of its citizens. I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for their efforts to address the growing and imminent problem of global warming. I strongly supported their amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions at the year 2000 levels by 2010 and implement a market-based emissions cap and trade system. The United States has only 4 percent of the world's population, and yet we produce 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. As the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a duty to act. We have already begun to see the very real effects of global warming. The polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting, snowpacks are dwindling, and coastlines are falling away. If we do not act, these problems will only grow worse. California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of this snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people--equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin. Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and they are counting on us to do the same. It is time that the United States--the world's largest contributor to climate change--stepped up and took responsibility for our actions and their impact on the world. Global warming is too serious a problem for us to keep ignoring it. Yet the Senate voted against the McCain-Lieberman amendment. We missed a big opportunity to do the right thing for our country and for the world. I am also concerned because the bill includes a provision that would allow the Department of Interior to conduct an inventory of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. I joined my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to strip this provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was not agreed to. Why would we need to inventory the resources on the Outer Continental Shelf unless we intend to drill there? I believe this provision is the proverbial ``nose under the camel's tent.'' I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our coast is too important to California's economy and to our quality of life. Despite soaring gas prices, this bill does not take any steps towards reducing our oil consumption, which could easily be done by holding SUVs and light trucks to the same fuel economy standards as passenger vehicles. SUVs have gained popularity to the point that they now make up more than half of new car sales in the United States. That is why I believe SUVs and light trucks should be held to the same fuel efficiency and safety standards as the smaller passenger cars they are replacing on our roads. This would both reduce our oil consumption and imports as well as curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition, increasing fuel economy in SUVs and light trucks would save owners hundreds of dollars each year at the gas pump. Consumers are concerned about high gas prices, yet we do next to nothing in the bill to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so that they use less gasoline. Our dependence on oil is reaching critical levels. Crude oil is hitting record highs at nearly $60 per barrel this week and it is not going to fall any time soon. Crude oil is a global commodity and global oil demand is rising, especially in China and India. In the past 5 years, China's oil imports have doubled, and show no signs of slowing down. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double again by 2025, while its imports will quadruple to 60 percent of its total oil consumption. China is now the world's second biggest oil consumer, behind only the United States. And today we heard the news that China wants to buy an American oil company. In addition, India's oil needs are expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. Last year alone, India's oil consumption grew by 10 percent. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable. The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our limited fuel supplies more wisely. That is why I am so disappointed that the Senate did not include any provisions to increase fuel economy in the bill. I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member were able to work together on a bill that does not roll back environmental protections, as the House bill does. I want to take a minute to point out the most egregious House provisions that I hope we will not see in a conference report. They include: Retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers despite the fact that the courts have already found that they make a defective product. This provision protects oil companies from having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the water supplies across the country that MTBE has contaminated. Even though I am supporting the Senate Energy bill, I will not hesitate to vote against the conference report if it includes MTBE liability protection. Allowing communities to get out of requirements to clean up their air if they claim that part of its problem is a result of transported air pollution. This provision severely weakens the Clean Air Act. Exempting the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Weakening the ability of States to have a say in Federal activities that affect their coasts, including limiting appeals related to pipeline construction or offshore energy development under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Further, the House $8 billion tax package is completely lopsided in favor of oil and gas production--only 5 percent of the $8 billion goes toward incentives for renewable energy production. While I am pleased that the bill includes strong consumer protections that will hopefully prevent another energy crisis, incentives for energy efficiency, and promotes new energy technologies, I am disappointed that the bill does not do the right thing on global warming, ethanol, fuel economy, the Outer Continental Shelf, or LNG siting. And so, it is with reluctance that I cast my vote in favor of this Energy bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an outstanding American whose tireless work helped bring to national attention the matter of gay civil rights. Jean O'Leary represented the ideals of a truly integrated society, a Nation that saw equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people of this world. On June 4, 2005, my dear friend, Jean O'Leary died at the age of 57, in her home in San Clemente, CA. Her passing is a great loss to her family and she will be missed by all who knew her. I offer my deepest condolences to her family and am joined by the thousands of Californians, as well as those throughout the country, who have benefited from her work to end the injustices that segregate this great Nation. Jean O'Leary's was a light, a remarkable voice in an area that needed a champion. Her legacy will live on through the passion and energy she gave to the gay rights movement. Jean Marie O'Leary lived a life of extraordinary accomplishments. Born in Kingston, NY, but raised mostly in Ohio, Ms. O'Leary attended parochial schools from third grade through high school and in 1966 joined the Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary to become a nun. Many were surprised by her decision which contradicted her independent and rebellious nature. Years later she revealed that she wanted to become a nun because she ``wanted to do something special, to have an impact on the world.'' Jean O'Leary left the covenant in 1971, returning to New York where she immersed herself in the gay rights movement. She was a member of the Gay Activists Alliance, founder of the Lesbian Feminist Liberation, co-executive director of the National Gay Task Force, and head of the National Gay Rights Advocates where she helped bring visibility to the movement. In 1977, Ms. O'Leary through her close friendship with Midge Costanza, an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, organized the first- ever meeting of gay rights advocates in the White House. This historic gathering of gay and lesbian leaders spurred a national discussion to review and begin to correct the antigay policies by Federal Government agencies. President Carter later appointed her to the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year where she negotiated the inclusion of gay and lesbian rights on the commission's conference held in Houston. In her work as a Democratic Party activist, O'Leary was a pillar of strength and support that helped advance the rights of gay men and lesbians, women and people living with HIV and AIDS. Truly, she lived up to her dreams to shape the world. In a career that spanned 35 years, I remember Ms. O'Leary as an exception activist, a woman with a soft-spoken, charming, and compassionate nature that shown through in her tremendous ability to pioneer an issue that involves millions worldwide. Jean O'Leary was an exemplary American who worked to improve the life of all persons in the Nation. She was an outstanding individual, a close and trusted friend, and an inspiration to this Nation. We will all miss her spirit and passion, and our thoughts go out to her family and friends.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 841.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators Snowe, Reed, Sessions, Kennedy, Collins, Dodd, Boxer, Clinton, Lieberman, Cantwell, Kerry, Schumer, and Murray, to offer this amendment to the Energy bill on the siting of liquefied natural gas import terminals. Let me clearly state that the problem is not whether to site these LNG terminals, but where. To give control to a remote Federal agency, when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site, we, the cosponsors of this amendment, believe is a mistake. This Energy bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas facilities. Our amendment would provide each State's Governor the same authority to veto, approve, or attach conditions to onshore liquefied natural gas facilities as they now have with respect to offshore liquefied natural gas facilities. This amendment is not concurrent siting. It does not require the applicant duplicate the application process, nor does it add additional time and money to the entire application process. It simply states Governors will have 45 days to approve, veto, or attach conditions to a project after FERC issues its final environmental impact statement. This chart, I think, says it all. Increased demand for LNG means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us. Let me be clear. I do not oppose liquefied natural gas sites in California. Liquefied natural gas is clean energy and it is less costly than other forms. What this chart shows is there are 34 potential sites for liquefied natural gas. Those are the blue circles, clustered around the gulf, off of Florida, off of the northeast coast, off of California, and one in the Pacific Northwest. It points out that eight sites in the United States have already been approved by FERC. It shows three are approved for Mexico, two are approved for Canada, and there are five existing sites at this time. Clearly this Nation is on its way to using liquefied natural gas. The United States holds less than 4 percent of total world reserves, and California produces less than 15 percent of the natural gas it consumes, so if there is to be this form of clean energy, it must be imported. That is why Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, and the State Governors Association, all agree the State needs new natural gas supplies and that LNG terminals may help put downward pressure on increasing natural gas prices. The chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee believe FERC should have the final say over siting LNG terminals. On the other hand, we agree with the Governors of California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware, who stated in a letter dated May 25, that: Without State jurisdiction, there is no guarantee a project will be consistent with the homeland security or environmental requirements for a particular locality, or whether the project adequately addresses the energy demands of the respective State or region. We support legislation that would provide for concurrent State and Federal jurisdiction over LNG and other energy facilities. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this letter is buttressed by the letter just received from the National Governors Association, supporting this amendment, which will shortly be on everyone's desk. I ask unanimous consent that second letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe. Then I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to Senator Reed from Rhode Island.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located. For LNG facilities that are being sited offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project now, yet this bill gives the State less input for facilities that are located on shore, in our busy ports, and near closely packed communities. This is completely illogical to me. It simply does not make sense. To give the Governor the veto power over a deepwater port more than 3 miles from land, and yet refuse to give that Governor any veto power over a site that might be located in the heart of the densest metropolitan areas of our country is completely illogical. In a conversation I had recently, last week, with Chairman Pat Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, he said even if the Federal Government sited an LNG facility, it would not be built as long as a Governor opposed it. If that is in fact the case, then why not give the Governor of a State the necessary authority? Let me explain how this works. Under the Deep Water Port Act, which was amended in 2002 to regulate the process for siting offshore LNG, an LNG terminal that is located in Federal waters beyond the 3 miles of the State's territorial waters must be approved by the Federal Government, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and the Governor of the adjacent coastal State. Under the pending Energy bill, the Governor would have no veto authority for siting onshore LNG terminals. In other words, if the Governor of California or Massachusetts or anywhere else were to decide an LNG terminal posed too great a safety risk to the 400,000 people living close--let's say to the Port of Long Beach; that is the only proposed onshore project in California--then the Governor would have no authority, the State would have no authority to veto that project. But if that same project were located offshore, more than 3 miles away from the Port of Long Beach, the Governor would be able to veto it. That is nonsensical, in my view. Some of my colleagues will argue that States already have a veto under the Coastal Zone Management Act. However, I have received a letter from Chairman Wood that says in fact the State does not have a veto authority under this law. In a letter to me dated June 15, Chairman Wood states that: . . . [F]ollowing an adverse consistency determination by a State, the Secretary of Commerce can, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, find after providing a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments by the Federal energy agency involved, and from the State, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act or is otherwise necessary in the interests of national security. What does this mean? That means if the State were to find that the onshore LNG terminal would negatively impact the State's coastline, the Secretary of Commerce could take it upon himself to overturn that decision. Clearly, this removes any State authority. I ask unanimous consent to have a series of letters that I have exchanged with the Chairman of FERC printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, that is why my colleagues and I are offering this amendment today, to provide States with a real veto authority if a project were to violate the State's environmental protection, land and water use, public health and safety, and coastal zone management laws. In this post-9/11 world, I think we have to look a little differently at the siting of all facilities, and especially the specific risk that LNG terminals pose. A December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories concluded that LNG tankers could, in fact, be a potential terrorist target. If the worst case scenario were to occur, a tanker could in fact spill liquefied natural gas that, in about 30 seconds, could set off a fire that would cause second-degree burns on people nearly a mile away. I admit this is a small probability. Nonetheless, it is such, and therefore it has to be considered. In siting these terminals, that factor is a factor of relevant consideration. That is why this amendment is so important. States must have a role in siting LNG facilities in order to protect the welfare of their citizens. Out of the 40 proposed LNG terminals in this Nation, the FERC believes only a dozen will actually be built. Since Governors have the responsibility of ensuring the safety of their constituents, it makes sense to me to allow the States to have a significant role in the siting of these facilities. If there are other options besides putting these facilities in busy ports or near population centers, they should be sited where they pose the least danger to people, not just where they make the most economic sense. Therefore, we present this amendment to the bill. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I turn the floor over to Senator Kennedy for as much time as he consumes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is. Senator Durbin

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute remaining.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. However, Senator Sessions has asked to speak for 3 minutes, and then I would like to have 1 minute to wrap up, if I might. I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended in that regard.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Three minutes for Senator Sessions, and 1 minute for Senator Domenici, and 1 for me?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Three additional minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Chafee as an original cosponsor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In the first place, there is no Federal delegated authority for safety. Let me give you an example, a case in point of what that means. That case in point was presented by Senator Kennedy on the Fall River placement of an LNG facility in the heart of river territory in Massachusetts. Three schools are in the area, with 9,000 people in the immediate area. It was opposed by the State government and every local city and town. But the FERC staff recommended the project go forward in the final environmental impact report. FERC is no guardian of safety. This is a case in point to give Governors some authority. The Deepwater Port Act gives Governors authority offshore. They should have it on shore, too. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator's generosity overcame me for a minute.