Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the leader.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I just need to clarify something.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to let the Senator offer that amendment. I will support the amendment, but the last telephone call I made to the Corps emptied their fund of $600,000, and if there was $300,000 in that account this morning, it should be empty now because the money is heading to Louisiana to fix some levies. I thank the Senator for his help. Amendment No. 1206

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask the managers if I may speak for a moment about pending amendment. I don't want to call it up at this point. I would like to talk about it for a few minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we are still working on the amendment, I hesitate to call it up at this point. I want to talk for a moment about why this amendment is so important. I think what the Senator from Alaska is doing is extremely important, and I commend the administration for putting forth a bill that really helps to address some very serious problems in our Nation because the emergency accounts are depleted. There are many emergencies occurring in our Nation, from fires to tornadoes. People's lives and homes are at risk. If the Federal Government doesn't act and do it quickly and appropriately, tremendous hardships and difficulties can result. So I am 100 percent supportive, and so are the people in my State, just as is every State that suffers from natural disasters. I am having a difficult time understanding why there is some hesitation--and the chairman has been very cooperative--to fund or to ask for money to fund the emergency fund--not a nonemergency fund, but an emergency fund that is completely empty. There is no money left in this account. It is a very important account not just for Louisiana, but for Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, California, and for all the States in the Union. It is the only account in the Federal Government that allows the Corps of Engineers to fix the levees when they are damaged in anticipation of a great storm that might come, and to prevent the loss of property damage. So we can save money in the bill by providing a little bit of maintenance on these levees. This account is empty. I am asking for whatever the chairman and the Members of the Senate think we can afford--whether it is $20 million, $30 million, $40 million--to get us through the end of the year so we are prepared when the storms come. And they will come, hurricanes will come. We just had a pretty tough storm last weekend. There is one out in the gulf as we speak. If I had time, I could put up a chart that shows where it is. There will be storms, and it is predicted to be a very difficult season. We hope and pray and prepare. But the account that helps us to prepare is empty. There is not a dime in this account. Let me repeat. The account that helps the Corps of Engineers prepare levee systems for the whole country--not just Louisiana--is empty. We are getting ready to pass a bill to protect us from emergencies. Yet this account is empty. I am asking the Senate to not pass this bill without putting some money into this account so that we can build up the levees in anticipation of storms--not after a storm has come through and wreaked hundreds of millions of dollars of damage, but before the storm hits, to be able to repair the levees that have been weakened by rain or by storms that are not hurricanes, tropical storms, or storms that don't rate to be a hurricane, and to prepare the levees to prevent the taxpayers from having to pick up a bigger tab. That is why I want to spend a few minutes talking about this issue and asking the Senate for its attention. If we can find $25 million to help fund disasters that occur because of dead trees, I think we can find at least half of that money somewhere to preserve the levy system in the country that protects billions and billions of dollars of infrastructure everywhere, not just in Louisiana. As the chairman and staff are considering what to do, I hope we can find a certain amount of money to make sure we get through the end of the fiscal year or get through a period where on another bill, perhaps energy and water appropriations, we can add some money. Whether $10 million or $20 million is enough, I do not know. Perhaps the Corps of Engineers which is engaged in this debate can give us some idea, based on weather predictions and patterns, determine what amount will be enough to help us. This is a huge issue for Louisiana, and it is a big issue for all the States. My people are afraid. They are frightened. The phone has been ringing off the hook because of the storm from last week. When I called the Corps of Engineers, which I typically do after a storm, and said, Could you please send some crews to help us with the levees, the people are very frightened, they said to me: Senator, there is no more money. We would love to send the crews, but there is no money in the account. I said: Do not worry about it; there is a bill coming through the Senate for this exact purpose--only to find out maybe the bill is not for this purpose. That is why I am going to offer this amendment in a few minutes, sometime tonight, and hopefully we can get it resolved. The Senator from Nevada, because he is the ranking member on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee which funds the Corps of Engineers, knows how important this particular fund is for the regular maintenance of a levee system, not after the Governor calls it a disaster. This is for maintaining the levees before the storms hit to prevent damage, to minimize damage, and save people's lives and property. There are other accounts that kick in once something is declared an emergency. That is not what I am talking about. There is no money in the account right now as we speak to prevent and repair the levee. The Senator from Alabama on the floor. I know he is going to speak on another subject. But there is no money to repair levees in Alabama, which is a coastal State, or any State. The account is zeroed out. I yield the floor and reserve the right to offer my amendment later tonight.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I want to be very helpful here on Senator Feinstein's amendment because I am sure it is going to a very worthy cause. But I want to ask the chairman, since it is attempting to put money into an account that is depleted, the amendment I am going to be offering will also put money into an account that is depleted, that is empty, for a different purpose but for the same effort, because there is a real problem of levee rates in Louisiana. I hesitate to object to the amendment or to even oppose it, because I don't oppose what we are trying to do. But I do oppose adding money to a depleted account when we don't seem to be able to add money for an account that is depleted.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 251, I voted nay. I intended to vote yea. It does not change the outcome of the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect as I have stated.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, every session in Congress we spend a large amount of time discussing education in this country. Debates range from accountability to school construction to teacher recruitment. While our discussions are of the utmost importance, it is the implementation of our decisions by the individuals within the education system that changes how our children learn. Today I rise to honor a man who had dedicated his life to improving education for children in Louisiana, Dr. Gerald Wayne Cobb. In 1960, Dr. Cobb received his bachelor's degree in health and physical education from Louisiana Tech University. Since that time he has been a crucial part of school improvements within the Lincoln Parish School System. Dr. Cobb has served as principal of Hillcrest Elementary School, Simsboro High School, and Ruston High School. He has worked as visiting associate professor at Louisiana State University and Louisiana Tech University. Dr. Cobb has also served in the Louisiana Department of Education, working as the director of secondary education, the executive director of academic programs, and the executive assistant to the superintendent. While with the Louisiana Department of Education, Dr. Cobb was instrumental in developing the Compensatory Education Program in Louisiana which provided remediation for students not meeting the passing scores on the State's Basic Skills Testing Program. Dr. Cobb also revised Bulletin 741, which is the Louisiana Handbook for School Administration and served as the basis for the State's accreditation program. Dr. Cobb worked to increase in-service training for principals by coauthoring the Louisiana Academy for School Administrators Program and representing Louisiana at the Leadership Training for Principals. After working with the Department of Education and serving as principal for schools throughout Lincoln Parish, Dr. Cobb continued his public service in the area of education by serving as superintendent for the Lincoln Parish School System. For the past 15 years, Dr. Cobb has immensely helped the 14 schools and 6,865 students in the Lincoln Parish School System. During his tenure, Dr. Cobb helped to construct the Lincoln Parish Secondary Alternative School at no cost to local taxpayers. He saw the students in Lincoln Parish receive the highest ACT scores throughout the State in 1996. In 2000, Ruston High School graduated seven National Merit Finalists, the most of any public, nonmagnet high school in the State. Dr. Cobb helped to expand the preschool program, implement the Even Start Program, construct a Parental Involvement Center, initiate the Career Options Program, wire all schools with the Internet, and implement 4x4 block scheduling in high schools. The gifts that Dr. Cobb has given the Lincoln Parish School System and all of Louisiana go far beyond those that I have named above. Dr. Cobb has spent the past 43 years giving his kindness, his leadership, his vision, his service. It is to educators like Dr. Cobb that we owe many of the successes of our education policy. My best wishes are with Dr. Cobb and his family as he enters retirement.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning an individual who has longstanding dedication and service specific to Xavier University and to education as a whole. Dr. Francis is being honored by the Urban League of Greater New Orleans on June 28, 2003, for his leadership at Xavier University as an outstanding President and advocate for academic excellence. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Dr. Norman C. Francis who has exhibited a spirit of greatness and for his leadership at Xavier University of Louisiana as an outstanding President and advocate for academic excellence. It is certainly important to reflect upon his accomplishments as Dr. Francis is still motivated to new levels, to enhance educational opportunities throughout our colleges and universities and throughout the community at large.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. It took two and a half years after the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most commonly searched registered and census records. Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not legally learn to read or write. We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not the index of the State Military Regiments. Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally. In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to the African American experience. No longer should any American have to wait to find out about information leading to freedom. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year by passing this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today on the 138th anniversary of the day that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX. They brought the news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free. Since its origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as African American Emancipation Day, or Juneteenth, is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. It took two and a half years after the effective date of the Emancipation Proclamation set forth by President Lincoln for the news of freedom to arrive in Texas. Of course, this kind of delay in finding out about new national policy, especially a bold new initiative set forth by Executive Order, would be absurd in our present society. We are now part of the information age and access to the most up-to-date news is commonplace. Unfortunately, African Americans who attempt to trace their genealogy face undue delay in obtaining the necessary documents to try and piece together their unique heritage. For this reason, I am proposing the Servitude and Emancipation Archival Research Clearinghouse, SEARCH, Act of 2003. This bill establishes a national database within the National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, housing various documents that would assist those in search of a history that because of slavery, can not easily be found in the most commonly searched registered and census records. Traditionally, someone researching their genealogy would try looking up wills and land deeds; however, enslaved African Americans were prohibited from owning property. In fact, African Americans were considered property, so the name of former slave owners would have to be identified with the hopes that the owner kept record of pertinent information, such as births and deaths. In most cases, If records exist, many African Americans were not associated with last names, thus making them more difficult to trace. With slaves not being listed by name, this also precludes the use of the most popular and major source of genealogical research, the United States Census. Even the use of letters, diaries, and other first-person recordings of slave simply do not exist because slaves could not legally learn to read or write. We may think after 1865, African Americans could then begin to use traditional genealogical records like voter registrations and school records. However, African Americans did not immediately begin to participate in may of the privileges of citizenship, including voting and attending school. Discrimination meant the prevention of African American siting on juries or owning businesses. Segregation meant segregated neighborhoods, schools, churches, clubs, and fraternal organizations. Therefore, many of the records were also segregated. For example, some telephone directories in South Carolina did not include African Americans in the regular alphabetical listing, but at the end of the book. An African American must maneuver these distinctive nuances in order to conduct proper genealogical research. In my own State of Louisiana, descendants of the 9th Calvary Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment, known as the Buffalo Soldiers, would have to know to look in the index of the United States Colored Troops and not the index of the State Military Regiments. Abraham Lincoln said, ``a man who cares nothing about his past can care little about his future.'' In 1965, Alex Haley stumbled upon the names of his maternal great-grandparents while going through post-Civil War records at the National Archives here in Washington, D.C. This discovery led to an 11-year journey that resulted in the milestone of literary history, Roots. By providing $5 million for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to establish and maintain a national database, the SEARCH Act proposes to significantly reduce the time and painstaking efforts of those African Americans who truly care about their American past, and care enough to contribute to the American future. This bill also seeks to authorize $5 million for States, colleges, and universities to preserve, catalogue, and index records locally. In a democracy, records matter. The mission of NARA is to ensure that anyone can have access to the records that matter to them. The SEARCH Act of 2003 helps to fulfill that mission by helping African Americans to navigate the genealogical process, given the circumstances unique to the African American experience. No longer should any American have to wait to find out about information leading to freedom. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Juneteenth this year by passing this measure, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand the Senator from New Mexico has 11 minutes remaining. Is that correct?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. I would like 5 of those minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, today I rise in opposition to Senate Amendment No. 884, offered by the Senator from Florida. Everywhere you turn these days you hear talk of a natural gas crisis facing this country. On May 21, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve testified before Congress that he was ``quite surprised at how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting,'' he said, ``because it is a very serious problem.'' Yesterday, while testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he went on to add that the increase in gas prices--more than double what they were last year--have put significant segments of the North America gas-using industry--chemical, fertilizer, steel and aluminum--in a weakened competitive position against industries overseas. What Mr. Greenspan is referring to is the looming gap between natural gas demand and supply in this country. Currently, we produce about 84 percent of the natural gas we consume. By 2025, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, projects that imports of natural gas will provide 22 percent of demand. Quite simply, we are facing the prospect of our natural gas market following in the footsteps of our oil market where imports continue to account for a growing percentage of supply. For years we have pursued a policy that is in conflict with itself. On the one hand, we encourage the use of natural gas in this country to meet our energy needs and environmental goals. It is viewed as a clean fuel to improve air quality and a low carbon-dioxide fuel to meet climate change targets. However, we have ignored the supply side of the equation. National output has remained stagnant since 1995 but one of out of every two homes in the United States is now heated by natural gas. The amount of natural gas used to generate electricity has increased 33 percent in the past 5 years and will likely grow an additional 60 percent by 2015. So, we now find ourselves living in a state of denial when demand outstrips supply and volatile prices occur. In my State of Louisiana, chemical plants, which use natural gas as both a fuel and a feedstock, face record-high prices. Because of tight supplies, the average natural gas price--NYMEX--for the first quarter of 2003 was $5.91 per million Btus. This represents a staggering 129 percent increase over the average natural gas price for the first quarters of the previous 10 years, which was $2.58. For ammonia plants in particular, the cost of natural gas can represent 70 to 90 percent of the total cost of manufacturing its products. Since 1998, the number of Louisiana Ammonia Producers, who account for approximately 40 percent of the U.S. production of ammonia, has gone from 9 companies employing more than 3,500 employees to 3 companies employing less than 1,000. Thanks to the good work of the Energy Committee, led by Chairman Domenici, I believe there are some provisions in this Bill, that if enacted, would stimulate natural gas production in the short term. For example, I offered an amendment at committee that was accepted and would encourage deep gas production from wells in shallow waters on existing leases. Provisions such as this one can bring gas to market quickly. While there are some conservation and efficiency measures we can take to try and slow high prices in the short term, we cannot continue to pretend that the supply imbalance does not exist. Believe it or not, the fight today is not over whether to produce more natural gas but instead focuses on a mere study, albeit a critical one. The proponents of the amendment before us would have you believe that enacting the inventory called for under section 105 of the bill would open Pandora's Box and lead to oil and gas production everywhere on the Outer Continental Shelf, regardless of whether an area is currently under moratoria. The fact is the inventory will do nothing of the sort. Section 105 will in no way affect existing moratoria on oil and gas activity in the OCS, nor will it diminish the rights of those states that oppose drilling off their coasts. Section 105 does not provide for the use of exploratory wells. The real truth behind section 105 is simply to inform the American public about how much potential oil and natural gas there is within these areas of the United States. I believe that the American people should have the most up-to-date and accurate projections of these public assets. An amendment such as the one pending before the Senate sends a signal to America's consumers, homeowners and manufacturing industries that Congress is out of touch and not committed to addressing a problem that only continues to get worse. The question might arise, why do we need to re-examine our offshore resources when many assessments of oil and natural gas resources off our coasts have been done? The answer is most, if not all, of these assessments relied solely on the geophysical and geological data yielded by company exploration and production efforts. In some areas, where moratoria have been in place for some time, the data is very old--10 years or more--and the estimates may no longer be accurate. Since this frontier was officially opened to significant oil and gas exploration in 1953, no single region has contributed as much to the nation's energy production as the OCS. The OCS accounts for more than 25 percent of our Nation's natural gas and oil production. With annual returns to the federal government averaging between $4 to $5 billion annually, no single area has contributed as much to the federal treasury as the OCS. In fact, since 1953 the OCS has contributed $140 billion to the U.S. Treasury. In light of these tremendous contributions, it is particularly interesting to realize that almost all of our OCS production comes from a very concentrated area of the OCS, the western half, which really means offshore Louisiana and Texas. Ninety-eight percent of the nation's offshore production comes from this half of the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2001, offshore Louisiana accounted for almost 80 percent of total OCS gas production. By taking this inventory, maybe we discover there are more resources on the OCS than we originally thought or maybe we actually learn less is out there. Regardless, we owe it to ourselves to find out. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New Mexico.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand the amendment offered by my colleague from Tennessee will be accepted. That is good. It is a good amendment and certainly should be part of this bill. Since I am in the Chamber, I wish to speak a minute in support of the amendment and add to the record he has so ably outlined. In one case in Louisiana--and there are many cases, but in one case Louisiana Ammonia Producers has gone from, in 1998, 9 companies employing more than 3,500 people to 3 companies employing fewer than 1,000 people. Part of the reason for this tremendous decline at a time when we are trying to create jobs instead of losing them is the rising price of natural gas. The price of natural gas, because supplies are so tight, in the first quarter of 2003, was $5.91 a million Btu's, a 129 percent increase over the average price for the first quarter of the previous 10 years. The Senator from Tennessee is absolutely right. A commission to study ways to increase the supply of natural gas is critical and important if we are going to keep the companies, large and small, in this country competitive. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I will take 3 or 4 minutes. I understand that the Senator from Alabama would like to speak in opposition to the amendment as well. In all due respect to my colleagues who are offering this amendment to strike this very important provision from the bill, I wanted to come to the floor to strongly disagree and to add my voice at the outset of the debate and on the points which the chairman of the committee brought to the fore on this very important part of the Energy bill. I wish to begin by saying that our Nation has 103 nuclear powerplants. The nuclear industry provides 20 percent of our electricity. I don't believe we will strip the Energy bill of this provision, but if we did, we would jeopardize the reliable and affordable source of electricity that this Nation needs to stay competitive in this world economy. It will cost jobs and cause hardship. People would lose their jobs with this amendment. I am not sure my colleagues are aware that over the next 20 years the United States doesn't need to move backwards as this amendment would suggest. We need to move very quickly in the other direction. We need to build 1,300 new powerplants in this Nation, which is the equivalent of 60 to 90 new powerplants per year to keep up with the increased demand of electricity. Why? Because our economy is more productive; because technology is demanding it; because good, old Yankee know-how makes it crucial that we provide our businesses with electricity and with power. If we don't give them power, they can't operate. If we don't give them power that is reliable and affordable, then we will lose jobs to our international competitors. It is as simple as that. We need everything and more, everything we thought of and more than we thought of. Nuclear is a very important component of that. The amendment's authors argue that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. It is a loan guarantee. It is our intention that these loans be fully paid with interest. We do this. There are 100 examples in the Federal rule book where we do this. We want to encourage the development and movement in a certain way. We can give loan guarantees, and we have done it time and again. It is time we do it for the nuclear industry to keep them moving in the right direction. Let me say to the chairman that I went down to Louisiana. We have two nuclear powerplants. Seventeen percent of Louisiana's fuel is nuclear. As the chairman knows, one out of five has the clean benefit of nuclear power. My producers of natural gas said to me, Senator, please go and fight for nuclear energy. If we don't get more energy into the marketplace, the demands on natural gas will become so high that we cannot pay our gas bills, and it is driving our industry to its knees. They said, Senator, please go and fight for an increase in all sources, including nuclear. Nuclear energy currently generates electricity for one in every five homes and businesses. It is important not only in Louisiana, where two nuclear plants produce nearly 17 percent of my State's electricity, but also in States such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont where nuclear generates more electricity than any other source. Nationwide, 103 reactors provide 20 percent of our electricity--the largest source of U.S. emission-free power provided 24-7. Nuclear energy is one of the most competitive sources of energy on an operational cost basis. While I strongly support the use of natural gas for our energy needs, we cannot rely, as we have in recent years, on any one source of energy to meet our Nation's increasing electricity demand. Over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption is projected to grow by over 50 percent while U.S. natural gas production will grow by only 14 percent. The CEO of Dow Chemical recently wrote that the chemical industry-- the Nation's largest industrial user of natural gas--is particularly vulnerable to high natural gas prices. To remain an economic leader we must promote a diversified and robust energy mix, including the full range of traditional and alternative energy sources. Nuclear energy is also vitally important for our environment and our Nation's clean air goals. Nuclear energy is the Nation's largest clean air source of electricity, generating three-fourths of all emission-free electricity. Nuclear energy will be an essential partner for future generations of Americans, whose reliance on electricity will increase and who rightfully will demand a cleaner environment. Just this past Sunday, the Washington Post highlighted the problems that the Shenandoah National Forest now faces with pollution. Think how much worse our Nation's air pollution would be if nuclear energy did not generate one fifth of our electricity. To preserve our current levels of emission-free electricity generation, we must build 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear energy production by 2020. In addition to providing the largest source of emission-free electricity, nuclear energy possesses the most viable solution to our over reliance on foreign oil, i.e., the potential to someday cogenerate hydrogen as a clean transportation substitute to oil. The Wyden amendment will hurt our Nation's long-term economic, environmental and security goals if passed. Building a windmill that has a generating capacity of 2 megawatts should not be compared to building a nuclear power plant that produces 1,000 megawatts or more. I agree with my ranking member that the nuclear industry is mature in the sense that it has been safely, efficiently, and effectively producing electricity for several decades. But we have not brought a new nuclear plant on line in this country for over a decade and a new project will face some uncertainties. The costs of the first few plants will be higher than those that are built later. Because the business risks will be greater for the initial few projects, financing will be more difficult to obtain. That is why the Federal Government needs to step in and provide an incentive to allow the industry to get over that hurdle. Some rather large numbers have been thrown around as to the costs of this provision. Were theses numbers accurate, I would share the concerns voiced by my colleagues. The construction costs as derived by CBO would be $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity is inconsistent with current cost incurred by other nations building similar types of advanced nuclear reactors. According to a detailed cost analysis developed by industry the first few plants will cost less than $1,400 per kilowatt hour and will later fall to less than $1,000 per kilowatt hour, making nuclear plants very competitive with the costs of other technologies. My colleagues who are opposed to these loan guarantees are assuming that a new nuclear plant could rise to costs over $3,800 per killowatt, based on questionable CBO projections. In addition my colleagues also fail to mention that the Secretary of Energy will be required to use stringent criteria to provide loan guarantees. I concede that we probably don't know what the exact cost will be, but the economic, environmental, and security benefits of investing in new nuclear plants for our future generations are many and great while the financial risk to the public sector is by comparison rather small. Let's give this idea a chance. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Wyden amendment. And I thank the chairman for all his efforts in helping to promote a vital source of energy and for helping to pave the way towards improving our Nation's energy security. I strongly oppose the amendment on the floor to strip the provision in this bill, and I support the chairman's mark.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Fine.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I can yield to the Senator from Tennessee. He was here, of course, prior to my arrival. How much time would he like?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk. We will be voting shortly on the Landrieu-Domenici-Specter-Alexander-Bingaman-Collins- Schumer-Feingold oil savings amendment. It is a very reasonable approach to an extremely serious problem. That problem is, unless we make some adjustments--and the time to make those adjustments is now-- to our policy regarding the consumption of oil, we will be seriously increasing, as opposed to decreasing, our dependence on foreign oil and hurting the American economy and taxing American citizens and businesses unnecessarily. The amendment has been developed by many of us--Democrats and Republicans--and it is based on lots of good work. Two issues I pointed out earlier this morning in the debate are in a lengthy article recently published by Business Week--not a liberal magazine by any stretch, a middle-of-the-road business organization that argues that we need to get smart about oil. As a Senator from an oil-producing State, let me say I agree 100 percent. We like to produce oil. We are proud to produce oil. But we know it is in the interest of our State in the short, intermediate, and long run to have greater supply, a diversity of supply of fuels, and not be overreliant. Why? Because it puts our economy, our industrial base at risk. I also mentioned earlier today the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, over 60,000 scientists and citizens working together to come up with some proposals for reducing our dependence on oil, and they are clearly outlined in these articles and these papers. What this amendment simply does--submitted on behalf of those I mentioned--is give the President all the flexibility he needs in his administration but to reach very specific goals. This amendment, when adopted, will save 1 million barrels of oil a day by the year 2013, which is equivalent to the President's own goals, but it will put this in law in the underlying Energy bill. I propose this amendment to the Senate for its careful consideration and hope we will get a broad vote. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to add some remarks, as well as other cosponsors who may be in the Chamber.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tanner Johnson and Neil Naraine of my staff be granted floor privileges.