Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Let me thank our chairman, Senator Collins, for all the work she has put in on this bill. It is a vast improvement over the formula and over the proposal of the administration, which came to us and which was worked on very hard by Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and others on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. What we will be voting on at 5 o'clock will be two amendments. The first amendment will be the Collins-Lieberman amendment, which is a significant improvement, it seems to me, from the vantage point of almost every State over the administration proposal. It is that amendment that I want to talk about and which I am proud to cosponsor. For the past 3 years, the State homeland security grant program has distributed funds using a funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States regardless of need. This formula disadvantages States with high populations. While other Federal grant programs provide a minimum State funding level to ensure funds reach all areas of the country, the State minimum formula which has been used to allocate State homeland security program funds in the underlying bill and which was in the administration's proposal--let me correct that--in the underlying bill, the underlying bill is unusually high. The underlying bill basically is a .75 percent minimum guarantee, which is similar to the one which has been in effect until now, and this is an unusually high minimum formula when compared to other formulas in other bills. The most common minimum formula in most programs is .5, one-half of 1 percent. The .25 percent minimum is more common than the .75 percent minimum. Yet in the bill before us--and I misspoke before when I said the administration's proposal. In the appropriations bill before us it is effectively a .75 percent minimum guarantee, which is significantly higher than most of the kinds of guarantees which have existed in programs similar to this where .5, half of a percent, is the most common formula and, in fact, one-quarter of 1 percent, or .25, is more common than the .75, or three-quarters of 1 percent, which is effectively the minimum guarantee in the Appropriations Committee's report. We have been working hard to come up with a more equitable formula. We worked very hard, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the committee on which both of us serve. It is a very difficult issue to reach a consensus, and yet we came to a very near consensus in committee. It wasn't unanimous, but it was close to unanimous in committee because of the hard work particularly of our chairman and our ranking member to come up with a formula which would try to treat all of our States equitably. We did a number of things, but perhaps the most significant addition we made to what has been the practice is that we added a new option basically for high population or high population density States so that they could choose in effect either between the minimum formula of .55 percent, which is in the Collins-Lieberman amendment, or select another formula which is based more on population and population density. Almost all of our States--not quite all but almost all of our States-- as a result of that option that is built into the Collins-Lieberman amendment do better than they do under the bill which is pending before us. The underlying appropriations bill that provides funding for homeland security grants provides that each State and territory shall receive the same dollar amount for the State minimum as was distributed in fiscal year 2005, and that is what essentially leads to the conclusion that that would be a .75 percent base State funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of funds to be divided equally among the States regardless of need. The authorizing committee--it is a key point here--the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is the authorizing committee--after holding hearings and going through a markup passed this compromise formula language which is in the Collins-Lieberman amendment before us, which would allow States to choose either the .55 percent of the total amount appropriated for the threat-based homeland security grant program or--and this is the addition which is so critical to so many of our States--a minimum amount based on a State's relative population and population density. This option for States will provide additional guaranteed funds to the largest and most densely populated States. The remainder of the total funds, approximately 60 percent, would go to the States and regions based purely on risk and threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security using factors set forth in the amendment--and that is another important point--that the factors for the Homeland Security Department to consider are set forth in the amendment. And then up to half of the remaining funds could be allocated in the discretion of the Department to metropolitan areas. The amendment sets some guidance, in other words, on the factors to be considered in allocating risk-based funding. Mr. President, this amendment that is before us represents a compromise. It is a compromise that has the support of small States and many of our largest States and our most populated States. Perhaps not all of them, although I believe by any measure, by any measure, the Collins-Lieberman amendment before us advantages even the most populated States compared to the bill that it seeks to amend. There will be a later amendment that will be voted upon that from the perspective of a number of States would be an improvement over Collins- Lieberman, but that is not what people have to vote on, as to whether they support Collins-Lieberman or the Feinstein amendment. People could vote for both amendments. It is not one amendment substituting for the other. This is not a decision as to which is better, vote only for one. From the perspective of some States both of the amendments would be an improvement over the underlying bill. The reason I am cosponsoring the Collins-Lieberman amendment is I believe it is the result of a carefully crafted compromise which adds a number of critical factors that do not exist in the way funds have been distributed up to now. The addition of the option for the population density factor is a significant improvement over the underlying bill which basically reflects the way funds have been apportioned to now. And the fact that there are also factors which are laid out in the bill to be considered by the Department means that all of us can see when it comes to the discretionary decisions by the Department the factors that the Department is to take into account when apportioning those funds. These are significant improvements in the underlying bill, I believe, for almost every State here. I repeat, the fact that an amendment that we will be voting on subsequently may be better even from the perspective of a number of States should not cause people to vote no on the Collins-Lieberman amendment, which from the perspective, I believe, of almost every State is an improvement on the underlying bill which is before us. So I commend the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Connecticut for working so hard to try to find a bipartisan approach, an approach which has great equity in it for all of our States greater than, surely, the present status quo, which needs to be changed but which I am afraid would be perpetuated if we simply adopt the Appropriations Committee proposal and if we defeat the Collins-Lieberman amendment. I hope that amendment will be greeted with strong support on the floor because it does represent an improvement from the perspective of almost all if not all States over the underlying status quo. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his support of this important research and join with my colleague from Michigan in supporting this project. As the ranking member knows, Western Michigan University, Altair Nanomaterials and the University of Nevada, Reno have had a successful partnership to build on their unique strengths to develop nanomaterials and nanosensors for chemical and radiological warfare agents. We also thank him for his support of this partnership and work on this important legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia for the question. First of all, it is not three Senators who are making these assertions. It is the National Academy of Sciences which has made these assertions we are quoting. That is No. 1. No. 2, the message which is being sent by going down this road endangers the security of the United States. We are telling other countries--North Korea, Iran--do not go nuclear. That is our message. It is a very clear message. The President is even threatening military action. He is saying he is going to have to put that option on the table if they go nuclear. Then at the same time the administration wants to restart a program, the program in this case being a study of a deeply penetrating nuclear weapon that has 70 times the power of Hiroshima in order to get to deeply buried targets. There are 10,000 of those targets, according to the National Academy of Sciences, and perhaps 100 of them would be held at risk by this weapon. So the idea that we are taking another step--you call it a study, but it is a step down the road, because the purpose of the study is to at least consider doing something. What we are saying, what the National Academy of Sciences has said, is this cannot accomplish its purpose. It will have a huge fallout. And what we are saying is the possibility that you could ever consider doing this is so far outweighed by the danger to us, by the message which is being sent to the world, that we are walking down a road we are telling others do not walk. That is the danger.

Mr. LEVIN. I would expect the administration would say something like that. But common sense tells us otherwise. Common sense tells you that if you are sitting down with people, in this case the Europeans, telling them we have to try to persuade Iran, don't go down that road, with the Japanese and the Russians and the Chinese sitting down with the North Koreans, do not go down that road, each of us has some experience as human beings. It seems to me it is absolute common sense that we will be confronted by those countries saying: You are lecturing us, threatening us, when you yourself are now looking at the possibility of redesigning a weapon 70 times the size of Hiroshima so that you can more deeply penetrate into the ground. It undermines our position. It weakens our position. It seems to me that means it weakens our security.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from California and Massachusetts and others who have come to the floor at this late hour to argue and debate an issue which is so critical to the security of this Nation. We will be a lot less secure if we go down this nuclear road. We know other countries are going down the nuclear road. We know we are even threatening those countries--such as Iran and North Korea--that we will not let them go down that road. We are even holding out the prospect that they would be the subject of military attacks if they go down the nuclear road. But at the same time we are doing this, that we are telling the world, we are telling Iran, we are telling North Korea, ``Do not walk down that nuclear road,'' the administration is proposing to take another step down our nuclear road. It is a decision which, if upheld by this body, will make us less secure. It will make it more likely that North Korea and Iran will say to us, and say to the world: The United States threatens us if we go to nuclear weapons, but they themselves are relying more and more and more on nuclear weapons. The administration has asked for $4 million to restart the feasibility study for the robust nuclear earth penetrator. I emphasize ``restart'' because we ended this mistake in fiscal year 2004. We should not restart this. We did not need it in 2005. We do not need it in 2006. The $4 million that the Department of Energy seeks for fiscal year 2006 will not finish the study. An additional $14 million will still be needed in fiscal year 2007, just to finish the RNEP study. What is it that the Department of Energy wants to study? What is the weapon they want to study? What is the RNEP appropriation for? It is to look at modification of a nuclear bomb called the B83. That is what is being looked at as a possible earth-penetrating weapon, the RNEP. The B83 is a large nuclear bomb. It is huge. It has a maximum yield on the order of 1 megaton. And 1 megaton is the equivalent of 71 Hiroshima bombs. So the weapon they are looking at, or want to look at, to modify for this function, is a bomb that has the power, the yield, as they call it, of 71 Hiroshima bombs. The goal of that feasibility study is to increase the penetrating capability of the B83. The yield, the power, of the B83, would stay the same. That is not being reduced. So the idea is to see whether or not that B83--that bomb with the power of 71 Hiroshimas--can be made to penetrate the earth. According to the report of the National Academy of Sciences, it will not be possible, no matter how good the design. The deepest that an RNEP could ever penetrate is about 12 feet. And when an RNEP detonates at 12 feet, 12 feet in the earth, it will generate, according to the National Academy of Sciences, more fallout than if it were exploded in the air. So if we go down this road, we will be looking at a weapon which cannot penetrate deeper than 12 feet in the earth and will have greater fallout than if it were exploded in the air, according to the National Academy of Sciences. We talk about collateral damage as though it is some kind of a cold term. This is damage which is so massive. We think of a weapon 71 times the size of Hiroshima, with more fallout than if it were exploded in the air, which--no matter what its design; even if this study is successful--cannot penetrate more than about 12 feet in the ground, and we are telling the rest of the world, ``Do not go down that nuclear road,'' when we ourselves are thinking--thinking--about designing a weapon which has that kind of a power and that kind of a fallout. It is not the hundreds of millions of dollars which this would cost to implement, assuming this study is completed, it is the absurdity, it is the utter nonsense, it is the danger to U.S. security that would be created if we take this step down the road, telling the world: Do not do what we urge you to do because we are not doing it ourselves. That is the message. We can tell the world, Do not do it, do not go nuclear, but what they are going to say to us is: Hey, you are going nuclear further than you already are. You are modifying weapons to try to make them ``usable'' against deeply buried targets. And you are telling us and the rest of the world we should not go nuclear when you are looking for more and more uses for nuclear weapons? We asked the National Academy of Sciences to look at this program. We asked them how much yield would an RNEP have to have to hold a deeply buried target at risk, and what would the effects be of using an RNEP? So the Academy reviewed the universe of hard and deeply buried targets and found you would have to have a huge yield to have any effect on deeply buried targets. What the Academy concluded was that yields in the range of several hundreds of kilotons to a megaton are needed to effectively hold hard and deeply buried targets at risk. This report was issued this year, in April of 2005. What it said is that to be effective against a target 1,000 feet deep, an RNEP would have to have a yield of 1 megaton. There are 10,000 hard and deeply buried targets in the world, about 10,000. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 2,000,--2,000-- of those targets would have some strategic significance. But the Academy finds that on the order of only about 100 deeply buried targets would be potential targets for RNEP. And many others--many others-- would be too deep to even reach with a 1-megaton yield such as RNEP has. So what this study would have us do is spend more millions, take us down a road which endangers us because of the message it sends to countries that are contemplating nuclear weapons. It endangers our security to study a weapon that cannot succeed in achieving its goal of hitting many deeply buried targets. And it would have an extensive fallout because of its huge size, 71 times the size of Hiroshima.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our trade policy is failing. This failure is reflected in a trade deficit that grew by 25 percent last year to more than $617 billion, and in the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs over the past 4 years. We are in this predicament in part because we have pursued one-way trade agreements that are not in the best interest of the United States and because we have not insisted that our trading partners grant us true reciprocity. It is difficult to see how pursuing yet another trade agreement in the same failed mold will produce a different result. The Central America Free Trade Agreement will not benefit American workers and farmers because it fails to insist on basic internationally recognized labor standards, the agreement will not meet its promise to improve the standard of living for the people of Central America and the Dominican Republic; Instead, it will set off another race to the bottom. The administration is asking the Senate to rubberstamp implementing legislation for CAFTA under fast-track procedures that only allow Members of Congress an up-or-down vote and no chance to amend or improve it. Although I support increased trade with Central America and believe that fair trade policies would benefit all parties, I do not support the agreement as crafted. Without the chance to improve it, I must oppose it. The administration is not doing the work necessary to get our trade policy on track. The five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic account for less than 1.5 percent of total U.S. trade, and our own International Trade Commission found that the U.S. trade deficit with CAFTA countries would likely increase slightly as a result of CAFTA. Yet the administration has made CAFTA its No. 1 trade priority. A better focus for our trade policy would be opening markets in Nations and sectors where the most egregious trade barriers block the sale of U.S. goods and services. We should break down barriers faced by U.S. manufacturers, farmers and services in key export markets including China, Japan, the EU, Korea, and elsewhere. This administration has also failed to deal with our trade deficit with China, which is on track to surpass $200 billion this year. The administration has failed to take action against China for undervaluing its currency by between 15-50 percent relative to the dollar to promote exports to the United States and to keep out goods made in the United States. This is a violation of the WTO prohibition on gaining a trade advantage from currency manipulation. The administration has also failed to deal with our large and persistent automotive deficit with Japan. Likewise, our recent record on trade agreements has not been strong; some of the trade agreements the U.S. has entered into have not been in the best interest of the United States. The clearest example is NAFTA, which made it easier for U.S. companies to outsource production to low- wage countries. Between NAFTA's enactment in 1994 and the end of 2003, the Department of Labor certified that more than 525,000 American workers suffered job losses as a result of increased imports or plant relocations to Mexico and Canada. Under NAFTA, our trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $1.663 billion in 1993 to a deficit of $45 billion in 2004. While it is true that our exports to Mexico increased under NAFTA, our imports from Mexico also increased, and at a faster rate. The American people and Members of Congress are understandably frustrated by the failure of NAFTA, and they are equally skeptical about the need to enter into another trade agreement pitting low wage workers from countries with weak labor and environmental laws against U.S. workers. Trade should not be a race to the bottom in which U.S. workers must compete with countries that do not recognize core international labor standards and basic worker rights, but that is exactly what CAFTA would do. I am disappointed by the weak labor and environmental provisions included in CAFTA. Writing labor and environmental standards into trade agreements is an important way to ensure that free trade is fair trade. But unlike the 2001 Jordan Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA fails to include internationally recognized, core labor standards. Those standards include the right to organize/associate; the right to bargain collectively; a prohibition on child labor; a prohibition on discrimination in employment; and a prohibition on forced labor. I am not seeking that CAFTA countries commit to American standards but at least to the five basic international standards developed by the ILO and supported by virtually every country in the world. Indeed, the CAFTA-DR countries are signatories of the International Labor Organization conventions. Requiring them to abide by their own international obligations is the least we can do when considering whether they deserve to receive trade preferences from us. But CAFTA only requires member countries to enforce their own labor and environmental laws, however inadequate they may be. Unlike the Jordan FTA, the CAFTA labor provisions are not enforceable. The U.S.-Jordan FTA treats the labor and environmental commitments the same as the commercial commitments, enforceable under the agreement's dispute settlement procedures. Under CAFTA, however, the labor provisions are not subject to the same binding dispute settlement mechanisms as are the commercial provisions, and violations cannot lead to the same level of fines or sanctions. There is a much lower standard for labor and environmental commitments, and that makes this a flawed agreement. Under CAFTA, the only labor rights and environment provision that is enforceable through dispute settlement mechanisms is if a party fails to enforce its own labor or environment laws effectively. This is of significant concern because CAFTA nations' own labor laws do not meet international standards. In fact, these countries have histories of serious worker rights abuses. The 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; the October 2003 ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work'' A Labor law Study, and other ILO reports confirm at least 20 areas in which the labor laws in the CAFTA countries fail to comply with the right of association, ILO Convention 87, and the right to organize and bargain collectively, ILO Convention 98. To give just a few examples, in El Salvador and Nicaragua it is legal to fire workers simply because they are union members; Human Rights Watch found that the use of child labor in El Salvador's sugar cane fields is widespread; and under Honduran law, it is legal to fire workers who say they intend to organize a union. One company in the Dominican Republic fired 140 workers at once because they sought a collective bargaining agreement. The company was fined $660, or about $5 per worker. Our own Department of Labor and State Department reports show that CAFTA countries fail to provide their workers internationally recognized rights. The U.S. State Department's 2002 Human Rights report on Guatemala said: Retaliation, including firing, intimidation, and sometimes violence, by employers and others against workers who try to exercise internationally recognized labor rights is common and usually goes unsanctioned. The U.S. State Department's 2002 Human Rights report on El Salvador said: There were repeated complaints by workers, in some cases supported by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA), teat the Government impeded workers from exercising their right of association. In June 2001, the CFA reiterated its 1999 finding that the existing labor code restricts freedom of association. That same report also said of El Salvador: The constitution prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14; however, child labor is a problem. CAFTA would give away the current leverage we have against these violations of basic workers rights. Under CAFTA, the U.S. can only take action against a country if it deliberately fails to enforce its labor and environmental laws in an effort to gain a trade advantage. Even then, the country must only pay a fine to itself, which will be used to fund labor enforcement in that country. This is a step backwards from the status quo. CAFTA countries currently have preferred access to our markets through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, CBI, and the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP. Under these trade preference programs, beneficiary countries must meet internationally recognized labor standards or risk losing their preferential trade treatment. These current trade preferences can be completely withdrawn for failure to meet ILO core labor standards. The possibility of losing trade benefits works as a strong incentive for CAFTA countries to make improvements in their worker rights laws. CAFTA eliminates that incentive because it gives CAFTA countries permanent trade benefits regardless of how they treat their workers and no matter how far their labor laws fall short of international norms. If we give away that leverage, CAFTA countries would have no incentive to improve their inadequate labor laws or the treatment of their workers. If a country wants to have preferential access to the U.S. market through a trade agreement or preferential trade benefit program, it ought to agree to abide by the ILO labor standards. Without such a commitment, we might be giving special access to our markets to products made with child labor or forced labor, or to employers that intimidate or use violence against workers attempting to organize or join labor unions. That is not something we as a Nation would want to do. Countries getting benefits from the U.S. should comply with internationally recognized labor standards as a condition for receiving those benefits. That is a reasonable expectation and one that is reflective of basic American values. Trade should not be a race to the bottom. And American workers should not be asked to compete with countries that do not recognize core international labor standards and basic worker rights. Rejecting the CAFTA implementing legislation as currently drafted is a rejection of the failed and flawed trade policies of the past and a signal of support for a better approach to trade that supports both the rights of American workers and the rights of our trading partners.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the .50 caliber sniper rifle is employed by militaries around the world because of its powerful and destructive capabilities. Fifty caliber sniper rifles in the hands of terrorists pose a significant threat to our homeland security. Unfortunately we have not done enough to help keep terrorists from acquiring these dangerous weapons. Published reports indicate that .50 caliber sniper rifles are capable of accurately hitting a target more than 1,500-yards away with a bullet measuring a half-inch in diameter. In addition, these thumb-size bullets come in armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive varieties that can easily punch through aircraft fuselages, fuel tanks, and engines. One leading manufacturer of the .50 caliber sniper rifle, Barrett Firearms, posts a variety of news and magazine articles to promote the capabilities of its product on its website. One such article, titled ``Practical to Tactical'' originally appeared in the April 2004 issue of American Rifleman, a publication of the National Rifle Association. The article details how Ronnie Barrett, founder of Barrett Firearms, originally designed his .50 caliber rifle to be a ``long-range target gun'' but was later able to sell it to the U.S. military for use during the first Iraq war to ``destroy hard targets, such as radar sites, bunkers, and light armored vehicles.'' The U.S. military has also used the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle during the current war in Iraq. According to the article, a U.S. Army report regarding operations in Iraq said: ``The Barrett .50-cal Sniper Rifle may have been the most useful piece of equipment in the urban fight'' and ``was used to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1,400 meters.'' It continued, ``Soldiers not only appreciated the range and accuracy but also the target effect. Leaders and scouts viewed the effect of the .50-cal. round as a combat multiplier due to the psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target.'' Fifty caliber sniper rifles are sold not only to military buyers, they are also available to private individuals in the United States. Under current law, .50 caliber sniper rifles nearly identical to those described in the Army's report can be purchased by private individuals with only minimal Federal regulation. In fact, these dangerous weapons are treated the same as other long rifles including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles. I am a cosponsor of the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act introduced by Senator Feinstein, D-CA. This bill would reclassify .50 caliber rifles under the National Firearms Act, NFA, treating them the same as other high powered or especially lethal firearms like machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Among other things, reclassification of .50 caliber sniper rifles under the NFA would subject them to new registration requirements. Future transfers or sales of .50 caliber sniper rifles would have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with an accompanying background check. In addition, the rifle being sold would have to be registered with Federal authorities. Adoption of the common sense Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act would help to ensure that these dangerous weapons are not obtained by terrorists and used against innocent Americans. We can, and must, do more to help keep military style firearms out of the hands of potential terrorists.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am supporting the energy bill before us today because I feel that it is a step forward in establishing a sound energy policy for our Nation. With oil prices soaring to over $60 per barrel, consumer gasoline prices continuing to rise, and the impacts of global climate change increasingly apparent, we need to move toward diversity of our energy supply and reduction of our dependence on oil. The bill before us today includes provisions that will increase the diversity of our Nation's fuel supply, encourage investment in infrastructure and alternative energy technologies, increase domestic energy production, take critical steps to improve the reliability of our electricity supply, and improve energy efficiency and conservation. This bill is not a perfect bill, but on balance it moves toward a sound energy policy that will lead the way to greater energy security and efficiency for the United States. It will increase our domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner, provide incentives to move toward more and diversified supply options, and provide consumers with affordable and reliable energy. When we consider energy policy, it is always a balance. Many factors must be taken into account--the environment, national security, our economy and jobs. Each and every vote on this bill required a balancing of these factors to determine what is best for Michigan and for our country. Our policies have long ignored the problem of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and we remain as vulnerable to oil supply disruptions today as we have been for decades. Taking the steps necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is an important objective for this country. I have long supported a broad array of Federal efforts to meet that objective. I believe that we need a long-term, comprehensive energy plan, and I have long supported initiatives that will increase our domestic energy supplies in a responsible manner and provide consumers with affordable and reliable energy. There are provisions included in this bill that will help take important steps in this direction--particularly those provisions of this bill that address energy efficiency and renewable energy and will lead us toward greater uses of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I have also long advocated Federal efforts that will lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technology that will help us reduce our oil consumption. We need a level of leadership similar to the effort of a previous generation to put a man on the moon. I believe we need our own ``moon shot'' in the area of automotive technology to develop alternatives to petroleum and to make more efficient use of all forms of energy. I am pleased that the bill before us today is a bipartisan bill and, as such, it is a significant improvement over what the Senate has considered in previous years. This proves that when we work together in a bipartisan fashion, not only is the process better but so is the resulting policy. The bill includes a wide range of energy efficiency provisions that will ensure that conservation and efficiency are a central component of our Nation's energy strategy. These provisions address Federal, State, and local energy efficiency programs, provide funding for important programs such as home weatherization, and establish efficiency standards for a wide variety of consumer and commercial products. Provisions of the bill will also ensure more efficient operation of Federal facilities, setting an important example by the Federal Government. The bill will also accelerate advances in energy-efficient appliance technologies by providing a tax credit for the production and sale of products such as super energy-efficient washing machines, refrigerators and dishwashers. Increasing the sale of these products will result in significant energy and water savings, thereby reducing dependency on foreign energy, reducing emissions and conserving water. Finally, because the tax credits apply only to U.S.-manufactured products, the bill can stabilize or increase American manufacturing jobs. This legislation also takes critical steps to improve the reliability of our electrical grid and promote electricity transmission infrastructure development. Our economy depends upon electric power, and, in some cases, electric power literally saves lives. Failures in the electric system interrupt many crucial activities. Our current industry-developed, voluntary standards for the reliability of the electrical grid have long been in need of improvement. That need for improvement was underscored painfully by the August 2003 blackout. There were two key lessons from the blackout--the need for strong regional transmission organizations to ensure that reliability standards are carried out and enforced, and the need for additional transmission upgrades to maintain reliability. I regret that it has taken 2 years to get to a consensus on these issues. Nonetheless, I am pleased that the provisions of this bill authorize the creation of an electricity reliability organization to establish mandatory and enforceable reliability standards, which is a critical and necessary step forward. The bill puts an increased emphasis on renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar power. These technologies are becoming more economical every year. In fact, in some areas of the country these technologies are competitive with traditional fuels such as coal and natural gas. With this in mind, this bill includes a renewable portfolio standard, which requires sellers of electricity to obtain 10 percent of their electric supply from renewable energy sources by the year 2020. Existing hydroelectric pumped storage facilities--such as the Ludington pumped storage facility in Michigan--are included in the definition of hydroelectric facilities, which will ensure that these reliable existing sources of renewable power are calculated in a utility's base generation and can continue to be utilized to full potential. Finally, to promote the use of renewable fuels, the bill also includes a requirement for refiners to use 8 billion gallons of ethanol or biofuels by 2012. Overall, the increased use of renewable technologies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lead to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs. The bill also puts increased emphasis on diversity of supply and includes a broad range of provisions intended to encourage the use of new and cleaner technologies, particularly for power generation. Nearly 60 percent of electricity generation in Michigan is generated from coal, which will remain a vital resource well into the future. Programs authorizing research in clean coal-based gasification and combustion technologies will ensure that the most advanced technologies are developed for power generation. Other provisions of the bill also encourage the use of innovative technologies for both power generation and other end-uses. Increased emphasis on diversity of fuel supply will help to take the pressure off of our tight natural gas supply, which is important for States such as Michigan with a large manufacturing base. Over the past 6 years, the tight natural gas supply and volatile domestic prices have had significant impacts on the U.S. manufacturing sector, which depends on natural gas as both a fuel source and a feedstock and raw material for everything from fertilizer to automobile components. As domestic production of natural gas has declined, demand for natural gas has increased dramatically, particularly in the area of power generation. Today, U.S. natural gas prices are the highest in the industrialized world, and many companies have been forced to move their manufacturing operations offshore. More than two million manufacturing jobs have been lost to overseas operations in the 5 years since natural gas prices jumped from $2.00 per million Btu to more than $7.00 per million Btu. I am pleased that the Senate bill includes a significant research, development, demonstration and commercialization effort in the area of hydrogen and fuel cells. I believe that this program will help us make critical strides toward realizing the goal of putting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road over the next 10 to 15 years. We need a significantly larger effort than anything on the drawing boards, and we need to put greater Federal resources into work on other breakthrough technologies--such as advanced hybrid technologies, advanced batteries, advanced clean diesel, and hybrid diesel technology. Federal Government investment is essential not only in research and development but also as a mechanism to push the market toward greater use and acceptance of advanced technologies. Expanding the requirements for the Federal Government to purchase advanced technology vehicles will help provide a market for advanced technologies. We also must have far greater tax incentives for advanced technologies than have been proposed to date. To that end, I had hoped to offer an amendment to the bill--along with Senators Bayh and Alexander--to provide more generous consumer tax credits for purchase of advanced technology vehicles and to provide an investment tax credit to manufacturers to help defray the cost of re-equipping or expanding existing facilities to produce advanced technology vehicles. The Finance title of this energy bill includes laudable incentives, but I believe we need more generous consumer tax credits for a wider variety of vehicles--including advanced clean diesel, as well as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles--to encourage consumers to make the investment in these technologies. I also believe that an investment credit on the manufacturing side is necessary to offset the high capital costs of such an investment. I hope that more significant tax incentives for a wide range of advanced vehicle technologies will be considered during the House-Senate energy conference. The Senate bill also includes an amendment I offered to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct a study and submit a budget roadmap to Congress on what level of effort and what types of actions will be required to transition to fuel cell vehicles and a hydrogen economy by 2020. If hydrogen is the right answer, we will need the equivalent of a moon shot to get there. We will need a significant Federal investment--well beyond anything we are doing today--in conjunction with private industry and academia to reach that goal. This study and roadmap will be an important step toward determining if that is the right path to follow. I am also pleased to have cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Voinovich to authorize $200 million annually for 5 years to fund Federal and State grant and loan programs that will help us to replace older diesel technology with newer, cleaner diesel technology. Our friends in Europe have taken advantage of the opportunities that diesel offers for improving fuel economy and reducing oil dependence. We have not been able to do so here in the U.S. because of our concerns about tailpipe emissions. Initiatives such as those included in this amendment will help the U.S. to develop advanced diesel technology that will be able to meet our emissions standards in a cost-effective manner. Lastly, the Senate rejected resoundingly efforts to require significant and arbitrary increases in the corporate average fuel economy--CAFE--standards, adopting instead an amendment offered by Senator Bond and myself that offered a more balanced approach. Our approach requires an increase in both car and truck CAFE standards but it requires the Department of Transportation to set these standards looking at the maximum technological feasibility, taking into consideration a series of critical factors such as safety, the impact on manufacturing and jobs, and the lead-time required for developing new technologies. Other proposals offered in the Senate--but rejected-- would have hurt domestic manufacturers and the U.S. economy, without doing much for the environment. Gasoline prices have been extremely volatile over the past few years and are likely to stay high. Our demand for oil continues to increase while our supplies have remained about the same. To reduce the impact of high gasoline prices over the long-term, we need to reduce our consumption of oil by continuing to develop advanced vehicle technologies such as hybrids, advanced clean diesels, and fuel cells. In the short-term, however, I continue to be concerned about price fluctuations because gasoline prices can have a dramatic effect on not only the average consumer's wallet, but also the economy as a whole. During consideration of the energy bill, I supported an amendment offered by Senator Byrd designed to provide some relief to high gas prices, specifically for people who live in rural areas. This provision allows employers to provide tax-free commuter benefits to employees who live in a rural area and drive to work in an area that is not accessible by a transit system. I was also pleased to support an amendment to help small businesses and farmers deal with the high price of fuel. This amendment, offered by Senator Kerry, gives small farms and businesses access to low- interest credit through disaster loan programs. These programs, through the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will give much needed relief to these small businesspeople and small farmers who have been hurt by the price spikes in heating oil, natural gas, propane, gasoline and kerosene. Lastly, I supported an amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, requiring the Federal Trade Commission to conduct an investigation and provide a report to Congress on whether the increase in gasoline prices is the result of market manipulation or price gouging. In 2002, as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I lead an investigation into how gas prices are set. Since that time, gas prices have continued to rise, and I believe a new investigation and report is warranted to hopefully result in some protection for consumers. I am pleased that this bill contains an amendment that I offered with Senator Collins to direct the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and use cost-effective procedures for filling the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The amendment requires DOE to consider the price of oil and other market factors when buying oil for the SPR and to take steps to minimize the program's cost to the taxpayer while maximizing our energy security. Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without regard to the price or supply of oil. During this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight. Many experts have stated that filling the SPR during the tight oil markets over the past several years increased oil prices. With this amendment, the bill directs DOE to use some common sense when buying oil for the SPR. Any successful businessperson knows the saying, `Buy low, sell high.' It makes sense for buying oil as well as pork bellies. Finally, I want to mention an issue that was a source of strong debate in the Senate but which this bill does not adequately address: global warming. For years, almost all scientists have agreed that human actions are causing temperatures around the world to increase. Experts also agree that this global warming will lead to environmental problems and economic hardship, but there has been no consensus in the United States about what we should do to stop climate change. The threat is real and growing, and the longer we wait to reach a reasonable consensus, the more painful the solutions will be. I believe two major policy changes are needed at the federal level: support for a new, binding international treaty that includes all countries, and a massive new federal investment in research, development and commercialization of new technologies. Both of these steps would provide real environmental and economic benefits while being fair to American workers. The Senate considered several well-intentioned proposals on this issue, though I did not believe they would have taken us in a comprehensive direction. I supported a sense of the Senate resolution that acknowledges the problem and calls on the administration to work with the Congress to enact a comprehensive national program to address this issue. The energy bills considered by the Senate over the last couple of years have been doomed by a heavy-handed, partisan approach and by a conference committee that added many objectionable provisions before the bill came back to the Senate. We lost valuable time in putting us on the course toward a sounder energy policy. It is my sincere hope that the majority will pursue a different approach this year and produce a bill that will have strong bipartisan support.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the past and present leaders and congregation of Temple Benjamin as they celebrate 50 years of service, learning, and faith on June 25, 2005. This milestone provides the perfect opportunity to reflect on the rich history of this institution and to remember the many individuals who played an integral part in its success. In 1955 Rabbi Joseph Kratzenstein, who escaped Nazi persecution and ultimately settled in Bay City, inspired the original idea for Temple Benjamin through his efforts to educate children in the Mount Pleasant community. Upon arriving in Michigan, Rabbi Kratzenstein frequently visited the Mount Pleasant area, drawing attention to the need for religious education for local children. The rabbi's call was answered by Harry Goldberg, Leo Simon, Ben Traines, and Dr. Phil Silvert, who raised the necessary seed money to establish the temple we enjoy today. Within 2 months of laying the first stone, the temple was completed and families began to use the services it provided. Temple Benjamin is one of the first Jewish community and religious centers to be established in the Central Michigan area and began with 10 families, some of whom would travel more than 50 miles for services. Today, the temple serves more than 50 families and has continued to grow and embrace the surrounding community. The founding mission of education, originally developed by Gene Traines, has remained a bedrock tenet of Temple Benjamin through the years. Many notable community leaders, including Rose Traines, Mildred Goldberg, and Helen Klein, have helped to shape Temple Benjamin's instructional elements and to promote community outreach. In addition to its work with children in Michigan, Temple Benjamin has contributed to the overall welfare and safety of our Nation through the dedicated service of many in the congregation. There are many in the congregation who served in our Armed Forces, including Robert Klein, Charles Muskowitz, Arnie Bransdorfer, Joe Simon, and Carvel Wolfson, who served with distinction during WWII. Through the years, those associated with Temple Benjamin have embodied the values of community spirit, faith, and leadership. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating the members of Temple Benjamin for their service to the community and in wishing them many more years of success in the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. That is on both amendments combined?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Missouri would yield 30 additional seconds to me to put a statement in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. It could be done. And NHTSA has a right to do that under our bill if it is logical to do that. But we should not set the number. We could say to NHTSA, and it is a perfectly logical argument, it seems to me that you should have the same mile per gallon standard for the same size vehicle. That is a logical argument. But that is not what is in this amendment. This builds on a defective system and makes it worse.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is a National Academy of Sciences finding about the CAFE system that the Senator from Delaware made reference to. It states: . . . one concept of equity among manufacturers requires equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers'' that is, ``equal treatment of equivalent vehicles made by different manufacturers.'' The NAS continues, ``The current CAFE standards fail this test.'' That is what the Senator from Delaware was referring to. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full paragraphs from the National Academy of Sciences study be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the time combined on the two amendments?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Bond for his work on this amendment, which offers an alternative, a rational alternative. This alternative would allow the agency that is the expert to weigh all the factors that should go into a rulemaking and to raise CAFE standards in a logical and rational and scientific way rather than a totally arbitrary way, which is what the Durbin amendment does. Of course, we want to raise CAFE standards. We want to do it in a way that protects the environment and protects jobs in America. But we do not want to do it in a way that will not protect the environment and will destroy jobs in America at the same time. We need to improve fuel economy, but how we increase it is critical. That is the main point I am going to make. You need to do it, but how we do it is critical. The question is whether we are going to do it through a rulemaking on the part of an agency looking at all the relevant factors, and I am going to list them in a moment or whether we are going to just pick a number out of the air. The number of the Senator from Illinois is 40--just go to 40 miles per gallon on the fleet and at the same time, by the way, just add trucks to the car fleet for the first time. It is not just cars now that have to get to 40 miles per gallon under the proposal of the Senator, but we add minivans and sport utility vehicles to that fleet--and it is done arbitrarily. It is not based on the considerations that a rational agency should bring to bear on rulemaking, which is what NHTSA is there for. Instead we are going to 40 miles per gallon for the whole fleet. We are throwing trucks into the car fleet to boot. It is a triple whammy to American jobs in the Durbin amendment. The first whammy is that the numbers that he picks are total arbitrary numbers: 40 miles per gallon, and he adds two of the three types of light trucks to the car fleet. Rather than legislating an arbitrary number, what the Bond-Levin amendment does is to tell NHTSA to take a number of important considerations into account when setting the level of the standard. Here are the 13 factors that we tell NHTSA to consider. We think we have found and identified every rational standard or criterion which they ought to look at in setting this number. First, maximum technological feasibility. Second, economic practicability. Third, the effect of other Government motor vehicle standards on fuel economy--because we have other standards, in terms of clean air and emissions, which bear on fuel economy. Someone, NHTSA, should take that into account. Fourth, the need to conserve energy. Fifth, the desirability of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Next, the effect on motor vehicle safety. This is a point which Senator Bond has made, which the National Academy of Sciences has commented on. Next, the effects of increased fuel economy on air quality. Next, the adverse effects of increased fuel economy standards on the relative competitiveness of manufacturers. Next, the effect on U.S. employment. Next, the cost in lead time required for introduction of new technologies. Next, the potential for advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, to contribute to significant fuel usage savings. Next, the effect of near-term expenditures required to meet increased fuel economy standards on the resources available to develop advanced technologies. Finally, to take into account the report of the National Research Council entitled ``Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.'' Those are 13 factors that ought to be considered in a rulemaking, instead of just an arbitrary seizure on a number that is then put into law and imposed on everybody arbitrarily. The Durbin amendment, in addition to adopting an arbitrary number, worsens the discriminatory features of the existing CAFE system because there are inherent discriminatory features in that system that give an unfair competitive advantage to foreign automotive manufacturers while not benefiting the environment. The reason for this is a bit complicated. I hope every Member of this body will look very hard at the CAFE system and not just look at the amendments that are before us, but also look at the situation we have where CAFE already gives a discriminatory boost to imported vehicles. The CAFE system gives this boost, not because the vehicles are more efficient--because they are not. The same size imported vehicles have about the same fuel economy as the same size domestic vehicles. I want to give some examples. There is no difference in terms of fuel economy. But the CAFE system, because of the way it has been designed, gives a discriminatory boost to imports because the domestic manufacturers provide a full line of different sized vehicles, which results in a lower fleet average. Let's just take four vehicles. This is a comparison of vehicle fuel economy, pound per pound. We are looking at vehicles of the same size. Here is an example of a large SUV. The Chevrolet Suburban weighs 6,000 pounds. The Toyota Sequoia weighs 5,500 pounds. So the Sequoia, in this case, is actually lighter than the Suburban. But the Sequoia, Toyota, is less fuel efficient--although it is slightly lighter--than the Chevrolet Suburban. The Jeep Liberty, 19 miles per gallon; the Toyota 4Runner, slightly less fuel efficient, although they are the same weight, 4,500 pounds. The example of a large pickup truck, the Chevrolet Silverado gets 18 miles per gallon, the Toyota Tundra gets 17 miles per gallon. They both weigh the same amount, 4,750 pounds. The Toyota Tundra, slightly less fuel efficient than the Chevrolet Silverado. The Chevrolet Venture and the Toyota Sienna both weigh exactly the same, 4,250 pounds. The Chevrolet Venture is slightly more fuel efficient than the Toyota Sienna. The point of this is to try to bring to bear the fact that, when you have vehicles of about the same weight, you have about the same fuel economy, in these cases slightly better fuel economy on the part of the Chevrolet and the Jeep, than we do the Toyota. You never get that impression from the charts that we see from the Senator from Illinois. That is not the impression that you get. He says that Toyota does everything more efficiently, they do all the hybrids. We, on the other hand, do all the big vehicles. We do not make all the big vehicles. As a matter of fact, the growth in the sale of Toyotas and Hondas, when it comes to light trucks primarily pick up trucks and SUVs is dramatically greater than anything they are doing in the area of hybrids. Their hybrid sales are a peanut compared to the growth in light truck sales. Hybrids represent 1 percent of the market, but when you look at the light truck sales on the part of Toyota and Honda, there are dramatic increases in numbers of sales of those vehicles. That is not because they are more fuel efficient, they are not. In some cases, they are slightly less. Let's assume they are the same. The sale of those light trucks has nothing to do with their fuel efficiency. It has to do with legacy costs, but I am not going to get into that at this point. So we have a situation where, because of the CAFE system, which is designed to look at the entire fleet average, because the imports have traditionally had a lot smaller vehicles--smaller trucks and SUVs in their fleet, they have a lot more ``headroom'' to sell all the light trucks they want without being penalized under the CAFE system. It doesn't do the environment one bit of good to tell people you can buy a Toyota Tundra but not a Chevrolet Silverado. But that is what the CAFE system does. That is what the CAFE system does. Toyota has ``headroom''--and I will give you the numbers in a moment--to sell huge additional numbers of their vehicles but a company like GM does not. That does nothing for the environment. Quite the opposite, it slightly hurts the environment. But call it a draw. It does nothing for the environment, and it damages American jobs. That is an inherent defect in the CAFE system. The Durbin amendment exacerbates that defect because it builds into the system an even larger number that must be met. By the way, these are the numbers I said a moment ago. This is the headroom, the additional sale of large pickups or SUVs allowed under CAFE. Toyota can sell an additional 1.8 million vehicles and still meet the CAFE standard. Honda can sell an additional 2.6 million vehicles and still meet the CAFE standard. But GM cannot sell any additional vehicles. But that is not because the Toyota and Honda vehicles are more fuel efficient. I cannot say that enough times. It is not because they are more fuel efficient. They are not more fuel efficient. At best, they are even. What good does it do to tell folks: You can buy a Tundra but not a Silverado? Why are we doing that to ourselves? It is not for the environment because it is no more environmentally friendly. Why are we doing that to ourselves? Why are we doing that to American jobs? The growth in sales of the imported vehicles is dramatic. It overwhelms the numbers of hybrids being sold. My dear friend from Illinois shows on his chart hybrid sales of something like 35,000. Meanwhile, Toyota's truck sales include 700,000 pickup trucks and SUVs this year. The impression of my colleague's chart is, look at all of the hybrids they are selling. But this is a peanut compared to the number of large trucks they are selling. So do not say the Big 3 are selling all the large vehicles and let everyone else off the hook. They are all selling a lot more large trucks than they are hybrids.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, a report published last week in the Buffalo News further exposes how reckless gun dealers and the use of ``straw purchasers'' contribute to gun violence in our country. It is important that we recognize their role in adding to our Nation's gun violence problem and work to enact commonsense legislation to keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. Under current law, when an individual buys a handgun from a licensed dealer, there are Federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not an individual who is prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. ``Straw purchasers'' serve as middlemen by purchasing firearms with the intent of transferring or selling them to other individuals who may be prohibited by law from purchasing firearms themselves or who may wish to hide the total number of firearms in their possession from Federal authorities. These ``straw purchasers'' help to supply the illegal gun market by allowing the true purchaser to obtain firearms, oftentimes in large quantities, without having to pass a background check. This practice is a felony under Federal law. As the Buffalo News report points out, individuals using ``straw purchasers'' are often aided by gun dealers who turn a blind eye to the practice. One of the gun show dealers mentioned in the report has been linked to more than 600 guns recovered by New York City police, a semi- automatic rifle used in the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School, and is now prohibited from selling guns in the State of California as a result of a lawsuit brought by several communities there. In addition, reportedly nearly 200 handguns that were illegally resold in Buffalo, NY, were originally sold by the same dealer. Investigations revealed that the handguns were obtained over a 6-month period by a man and several accomplices who made ``straw purchases'' on his behalf. Since records of multiple gun sales must be filed with the Government, the ``straw purchases'' were apparently made to avoid alerting Federal authorities to the illegal reselling of the guns in Buffalo. According to the Buffalo News, the ``straw purchasers'' in this case said that their role was limited to signing and paying for the handguns that the true buyer selected. Occurrences like those detailed by the Buffalo News are apparently not uncommon and continue to help fuel the illegal gun market in our country. Reckless dealers and ``straw purchasers'' indirectly threaten the security of our communities by facilitating the transfer of dangerous firearms to potential criminals who may use them in violent crimes. Unfortunately, instead of strengthening our gun safety laws as they apply to reckless dealers and ``straw purchasers,'' some of my colleagues are seeking to provide irresponsible gun manufacturers and dealers with immunity from liability, even when their actions contribute to the growth of the illegal gun market. I urge my colleagues to support efforts to help stop guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe climate change is occurring; I believe we are causing it; I believe it is a threat to the planet; and I believe it is long past time for action. Nevertheless, I can't support the McCain-Lieberman amendment since its effect would be the loss of more American manufacturing jobs to countries that have few, if any, environmental standards. That won't help the environment and it will hurt our economy. Climate change is not something we can tackle by shifting industries and their emissions to other countries, or by shifting manufacturing jobs to China or other countries that have no limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. The bill before us reflects a unilateral approach to a problem that can only be solved globally. Climate change cannot be addressed unilaterally. It must be addressed multilaterally. It doesn't help the global environment to push down greenhouse gas emissions in one country only to have them pop up in others. We need an international agreement that binds all countries. Otherwise, there is an incentive to move more and more jobs to countries with lower environmental standards. That does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and does damage to U.S. jobs. We need to return to the negotiating table and become a party to an effective international treaty on climate change that binds all countries. In my view, the Kyoto Treaty is insufficient because it does not impose requirements on the developing economies of India and China as it does on the United States and others. Those requirements need not be the same size or implemented in the same time frame, but they need to be a part of a global treaty's obligations. China and India are growing so fast that leaving them out of binding commitments and financial contributions would be a travesty for the environment and an economic competitive windfall for those countries. And it would be further insult and injury to our workers, many of whose jobs have already gone overseas. Another problem with Kyoto is that the specified caps are based on 1990 levels, and because of the subsequent economic downturn in Russia and other former Soviet countries, they can easily meet their targeted reductions and profit from the resulting emissions credits. Instead, we need an international agreement in which all countries take steps to reduce global warming so that there is no incentive to move jobs and emissions from a country with high environmental standards to one with low environmental standards. The basis of that agreement must be for competing countries to adopt tough environmental standards and for all participants to refuse to purchase products from countries that won't adopt those standards. I am confident that it is possible to craft an international treaty that controls global emissions in a way that is fair to developed and developing countries. One example of that was the Montreal Protocol that bans the use and manufacture of ozone depleting compounds. This treaty also had the side benefits of eliminating a whole class of greenhouse gases and created new market opportunities for U.S. technology developers. Engaging with other countries and coming to the table as a partner in an effective international treaty is essential to a global solution. To achieve a global agreement will require our putting maximum pressure on all countries to join it, so that emissions of greenhouse gases can be reduced, not just shifted. Shifting manufacturing jobs and the production of greenhouse gases from here to other countries is not a solution to climate change--it would just be another economic blow to jobs in America. Some firms who have deployed energy saving technologies and processes well in advance of the reference date may be discriminated against by this cap and trade proposal. For example, while this bill does have a provision for early banking of allowances, firms that implemented energy savings in the past 15 years may not have records of greenhouse gas emissions to allow credit for the action. Firms that installed energy saving measures prior to 1990 could also be unfairly disadvantaged because they would not be able to claim the savings in greenhouse gas emissions and further measures are likely to be more difficult than for firms that had delayed action. Legislation and treaties limiting greenhouse gas emissions should reward, rather than punish, this foresight. We have already lost enough American jobs to countries with cheap labor, no safety standards, and no environmental standards. To add more incentives for companies to move overseas to countries with no limits on greenhouse gases, as this bill would promote, is not sound policy. Global climate change is just that: global and it needs to be dealt with globally, not unilaterally.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer, along with Senator Collins, an amendment to ensure that the Department of Energy, DOE, carries out the direction in this bill to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, in a cost-effective manner. I would like to thank the managers of the bill, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and Senators Wyden and Schumer for working with Senator Collins and myself so that this amendment can be accepted. The Energy Bill being considered by the Senate today directs the Secretary of Energy to ``as expeditiously as practicable, without incurring excessive cost or appreciably affecting the price of gasoline or heating oil to consumers, acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to [1 billion barrels].'' This amendment will help the DOE ensure that it will acquire oil for the SPR without incurring excessive cost or appreciably affecting gasoline or heating oil prices. The amendment is simple. It directs DOE to consider the price of oil and other market factors when buying oil for the SPR. It also directs DOE to minimize the program's cost to the taxpayer while maximizing our energy security. At the same time, it does not restrict the Secretary of Energy's discretion to determine how quickly to fill the SPR, or when to put more oil into the SPR. A nearly identical amendment that I offered with Senator Collins was adopted by the Senate by voice vote on the Interior Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 2004. Unfortunately, it was not retained in conference. Under the amendment, DOE would have the discretion to determine when to buy oil for the SPR, and under which procedures, but DOE would be directed to use that discretion in a way to minimize costs while maximizing national energy security. The amendment also requires DOE to seek public comment on the procedures to be used to acquire oil. The Department would be wise to especially seek comment from energy industry experts and economists as to the effect that filling the SPR can have--and has had--on oil prices. I believe the Department can learn from our experience over the past few years as to the significant effect the SPR fill can have on oil prices. Since late 2001, the DOE has been steadily adding oil to the SPR. In late 2001, the Reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil; today it holds nearly 695 million barrels. DOE expects to complete its current program to fill the SPR to 700 million barrels in August of this year. Since early 2002, DOE has been acquiring oil for the SPR without regard to the price or supply of oil. Prior to that time, DOE bought more oil when the price of oil was low and inventories were full, and less oil when the price of oil was high and inventories low. In early 2002, DOE abandoned this market-based approach. Instead, it adopted the current approach, which does not consider cost or any other market factors when buying oil. During this period the price of oil has been very high--often over $30 per barrel--and the oil markets have been tight. This cost-blind approach has increased the costs of the program to the taxpayer and put further pressure on tight oil markets, boosting oil and gasoline prices to American consumers and businesses. Any successful businessman knows the saying, ``Buy low, sell high.'' This is true for oil as well as for pork bellies; for the U.S. Government as well as for oil companies. In 2002, the DOE's staff recommended against buying more oil for the SPR in tight markets. As prices were rising and inventories falling, the DOE's SPR staff warned: Commercial inventories are low, retail prices are high and economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Reserve under these circumstances. The administration disregarded these warnings. SPR deliveries proceeded. As the DOE staff predicted, oil supplies tightened, and prices climbed. American consumers paid the price. In 2003, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations published a report on how this change in DOE policy hurt consumers without providing any additional energy security. The investigation found: Filling the SPR in tight market increased U.S. oil prices and hurt U.S. consumers. Filling the SPR regardless of oil prices increased taxpayer costs. Despite its high cost, filling the SPR [in 2002] did not increase overall U.S. oil supplies. The March report also warned that the deliveries that were then scheduled for later in 2003 would drive oil prices higher because prices were high and inventories were low. This prediction turned out to be accurate. Many experts have said that filling the SPR during the tight oil markets over the past several years increased oil prices. In January 2004, Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the world, reported ``government storage builds will provide persistent support to the markets''--meaning that filling the SPR pushes up prices--and that ``government storage builds have lowered commercially available petroleum supplies.'' Bill Greehey, chief executive of Valero Energy, the largest independent refiner in the U.S., criticized the administration for filling the SPR in tight markets. Back when oil was just under $30 per barrel, Mr. Greehey complained that the SPR program was diverting oil from the marketplace: If that was going into inventory, instead of the reserve, you would not be having $29 oil, you'd be having $25 oil. So, I think they've completely mismanaged the strategic reserve. The airline industry has been one of the industries hardest hit by high oil prices. Last year, Richard Anderson, the chief executive officer of Northwest Airlines, stated: U.S. taxpayers and the economy would realize greater economic potential with a more prudent management of this national asset by not further filling the SPR under the current market structure. The DOE should wait for more favorable prices before filling the reserve both today and in the future. Larry Kellner, president and chief operating officer, Continental Airlines, also criticized the DOE's current SPR policy: The average price per barrel for 2003 was the highest in 20 years and to date, the price for 2004 is even higher. All the while, our government continues to depress inventory stocks by buying oil at these historic highs and then pouring it back into the ground to fill the strategic petroleum reserve. The trucking industry also has suffered under high oil prices. Last year, the American Trucking Association urged the DOE to postpone filling the SPR when supplies were tight and prices high: When the government becomes a major purchaser of oil, it only bids up the price exactly when we need relief. I know that you recently testified to Congress that the SPR fill has a negligible impact on the price of crude oil, but we politely disagree. Many energy industry economists and analysts have stated that filling the SPR in a tight market increases prices. Energy Economist Philip Verleger estimated that in 2003 the SPR program added $8 to $10 to the price of a barrel of oil. Economist Larry Kudlow said: Normally, in Wall Street parlance, you're supposed to buy low and sell high, but in Strategic Petroleum Reserve actions, we're buying higher and higher and that has really helped keep oil prices high. In a May 2004 analysis, PFC Energy, a leading oil industry consulting firm, concluded: The Bush Administration has actually been helping OPEC to keep spot prices high and avoid commercial stock increases by taking crude out of the market and injecting significant volumes into the SPR. Last March, in an article explaining why oil prices are so high, The Economist commented: Despite the high prices, American officials continue to buy oil on the open market to fill their country's strategic petroleum reserves. Why buy, you might ask, when prices are high, and thereby keep them up? The Senate has asked that question as well. It passed a non-binding resolution this month calling on the Bush administration to stop SPR purchases; but [the energy secretary] has refused. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional comments as to how filling the SPR during the tight markets over the past several years has boosted oil prices.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Stabenow in introducing legislation to name the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, MI, in honor of Mrs. Rosa Parks, ``mother of the civil rights movement.'' I also want to commend Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick for her leadership in sponsoring this initiative last week in the House Rosa Parks is an American heroine. When this gentle warrior decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus in Montgomery, AL, her act of defiance launched the modern civil rights movement in America. By refusing to move to the back of that bus, she inspired a yearlong, citywide bus boycott by African Americans in Montgomery that led to a Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation on buses and introduced a young local leader named Martin Luther King to the Nation. It was a turning point in American history that challenged the conscience of the country and the world. Rosa Parks' stand that day was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime struggle for equality and justice. Twelve years earlier, for instance, she had been arrested for violating another segregation law, which required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus and then re-board from the rear. In the years that followed her solitary protest, she was a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. In 1987, she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, which continues to offer young people hands-on opportunities to learn about civil rights in America. Although Rosa Parks will be forever associated with one day in Montgomery, AL, she lived most of her life in my home State of Michigan. She came to Detroit under sad circumstances--harassment and threats on her life--but she built a new life there. We in Michigan are proud to call her one of our own, and we want to recognize her enormous contributions by renaming this federal building in her honor. Appropriately, the building is a historic one, built in 1855 and used as a hospital during the Civil War. This legislation will ensure that the proud legacy of Rosa Parks is properly recognized in Michigan, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Stabenow in introducing legislation to name the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, MI, in honor of Mrs. Rosa Parks, ``mother of the civil rights movement.'' I also want to commend Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick for her leadership in sponsoring this initiative last week in the House Rosa Parks is an American heroine. When this gentle warrior decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus in Montgomery, AL, her act of defiance launched the modern civil rights movement in America. By refusing to move to the back of that bus, she inspired a yearlong, citywide bus boycott by African Americans in Montgomery that led to a Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation on buses and introduced a young local leader named Martin Luther King to the Nation. It was a turning point in American history that challenged the conscience of the country and the world. Rosa Parks' stand that day was not an isolated incident but part of a lifetime struggle for equality and justice. Twelve years earlier, for instance, she had been arrested for violating another segregation law, which required African Americans to pay their fares at the front of the bus and then re-board from the rear. In the years that followed her solitary protest, she was a prominent figure in the civil rights movement. In 1987, she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, which continues to offer young people hands-on opportunities to learn about civil rights in America. Although Rosa Parks will be forever associated with one day in Montgomery, AL, she lived most of her life in my home State of Michigan. She came to Detroit under sad circumstances--harassment and threats on her life--but she built a new life there. We in Michigan are proud to call her one of our own, and we want to recognize her enormous contributions by renaming this federal building in her honor. Appropriately, the building is a historic one, built in 1855 and used as a hospital during the Civil War. This legislation will ensure that the proud legacy of Rosa Parks is properly recognized in Michigan, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.