Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. What is the time situation on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will use the time in opposition if I need it, and some others may want to speak. Our committee worked hard on this bill, our portions of this bill, and the $3 billion associated with the converter box funds was derived from a CBO estimate based upon the problems that exist in the so-called analog world. There are an estimated 73 million analog TV sets not connected to cable or satellite. Our reconciliation measure ends all analog broadcasts on April 7, 2009. By that date, all televisions that rely on antennas have to be equipped with a digital analog converter box. We call that the set-top box. The cost to the consumers to purchase the box is estimated to be $3 billion. This amendment would cut that to $1 billion. That is not enough to meet the problem of these 73 million analog sets. I call attention to the Senate that there is a difference between the House approach and the Senate approach. The House would use a voucher system. The House estimates there are fewer sets than our estimate of 73 million. We believe by using the date--that is also subject to a question on an amendment that has been offered by the Senator from New Hampshire-- by using the hard date of April 2009, we estimate we will raise a considerable amount more money than a date closer to the present day. The impact of this far date is we have three periods where television sets are bought in great quantities, and during the Christmas period. To the extent the analog sets are retired by digital-ready televisions, we will not need money. This $3 billion is up $2 billion. We do not automatically throw in the $3 billion. This merely makes available the estimate of $3 billion and earmarks that. However, I call attention to the Senate that money not spent is earmarked in this bill to go to deficit reduction. It is not going anywhere else. There are specific items. There will be some amendments offered. I specifically refer to the amendment on page 94, line 10, that any amounts unexpended, unobligated at the conclusion of the program shall be used for the program described in paragraph 3, which is, in fact, the basic debt reduction system. There are some other complications here that I have gone into before. One of them is, we ought to be able to take this bill to the House for conference and work out with them the best way to deal with the set-top boxes. One of the great problems is that there currently is a range of estimates, as the Senator has mentioned, from $40 to $60. If it is $60, we do not have enough money. If it is $40, we have a little bit left over, and it will automatically go to debt reduction. I personally think we have problems in the areas that were devastated by Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The problem there is the televisions were destroyed altogether. It may well be that the cost in those areas will be substantially more than the costs of the set-top boxes. We have to decide that. Someone has to decide to what extent and where the money is coming from to help those people who are not able to buy their television sets, not able to replace them. Will FEMA do it? Are any other agencies going to do it? We will hear arguments that some of this money should be reserved for that. I, personally, support that. This is a fund that is designed to make sure we stay connected with these people. One of the real problems about the devastated areas--and having lived in an area that was devastated one time by a monstrous earthquake--it is hard to stay in touch without the local news without television, without connection with the outside world. We should think about earmarking some of this money to go into the devastated areas. Does the Senator from Montana wish time?

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is right. There are a series of items held in reserve: $200,000 for converting low-power television stations and television translators; $1.5 billion for emergency communications, which includes $1 billion for interoperability, $250 million for the national alert system, $50 million for tsunami warning and coastal vulnerability problems; we have $250 million to deal with the Senator's E911. But after that, the provision strictly says if the proceeds of the auction exceed the sums of payments under all of those, that amount has to go to deficit reduction.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have sort of a unique role in this argument, since I was in the Interior Department in the Eisenhower administration and helped create the Arctic Wildlife Range. It was specifically on this Coastal Plain, specifically specified it was subject to oil and gas leasing. Then I was here at the time that Senators Jackson and Tsongas offered the amendment that created the 1002 area and, as this chart shows, it was specifically excluded from the Refuge. It is not wilderness. It never was wilderness, and it has never been closed to oil and gas exploration. Their amendment required approval of Congress of the action--of the results of the environmental impact statement required by the Jackson amendment. Mr. President, I am wearing an Alaska bolo tie today because two of my friends, Laura and Crawford Patotuck, brought this to me and asked me to wear it when ANWR was up before the Senate. They are part of the Alaskan Native group that is here to support this bill and support proceeding with the oil and gas leasing. I have heard some comments this morning about whether this is right, to have this provision in this bill. The Constitution of the United States does not require 60 votes to pass a bill. That is only a procedural rule of the Senate on how to end filibusters. Filibusters plague the Senate. They continue to plague this Senate, and that is why the Budget Act was passed, to prevent filibusters on items that would bring about increased income of the United States. Many people are talking about the 50-50 split between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska under the Mineral Leasing Act. It so happens I was the one who suggested it to Delegate Bartlett at the time the Statehood Act was before the Congress, that we add to that, the Statehood Act, the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act which guaranteed to Alaska 90 percent of the returns from oil and gas leasing in Alaska because we were not subject to the Reclamation Act. The Reclamation Act no longer has any application. So Congress has, for many years now, divided these receipts on a 50-50 basis, and this bill, when it becomes law, will specifically so divide it. That is not an issue that would be appealable to the courts. What would be appealable would be the original change in the law by the Congress if we ever decided to file that lawsuit. Alaska has never filed such a lawsuit. I hope we will not hear anymore about whether this provision of this bill applies to Alaska as it applies to all Western States that have public lands. There is a 50-50 split on the royalties that are derived from oil and gas leasing. One of my real joys this year was to receive a letter from my old friend, James L. Buckley, Judge Buckley, former Senator from New York. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be placed on each desk because I think all Senators should read it.

Mr. STEVENS. Let me read it: Dear Ted: Twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate, I was a lead signatory in full-page ads opposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I opposed it because, based on the information then available, I believed that it would threaten the survival of the Porcupine caribou herd and leave huge, long-lasting scars on fragile Arctic lands. Since then, caribou populations in the areas of Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline have increased, which demonstrates that the Porcupine herd would not be threatened, and new regulations limiting activities to the winter months and mandating the use of ice roads and directional drilling have vastly reduced the impact of oil operations on the Arctic landscape. In light of the above, I have revised my views and now urge approval of oil development in the 1002 Study Area for the following reasons: 1. With proper management, I don't see that any significant damage to arctic wildlife would result, and none that wouldn't rapidly be repaired once operation ceased. 2. While I don't buy the oil companies' claim that only 2,000 acres would be affected, even if all of the 1.5 million-acre Study Area were to lose its pristine quality (it wouldn't), that would still leave 18.1 million acres of the ANWR untouched plus another five million acres in two adjoining Canadian wildlife refuges, or an area about equal to that of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. In other words, it is simply preposterous to claim that oil development in the Study Area would ``destroy'' the critical values that ANWR is intended to serve. 3. In light of the above, it is economic and (to a much lesser degree) strategic masochism to deny ourselves access to what could prove our largest source of a vital resource. I emphasize this: Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past 13 years (including a recent camping trip on Alaska's North Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see the threat to values I cherish. With best regards, Sincerely, Jim. There is a man who has changed his views. I do believe we should all take into consideration the fact that he led the movement, started the movement against the exploration and development of this Arctic Plain. I must express my amazement that our colleague from Washington has introduced an amendment to strip this provision from the budget reconciliation. In 1980, former Washington Senator, and my great friend, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson wrote a letter discussing the importance of ANWR. He wrote this about ANWR: Crucial to the Nation's attempt to achieve energy independence. One third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range, . . . is an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our Nation in this time of energy crisis. I say this: Not only does ANWR serve our important national security interest, it also serves the economic interest of the State of Washington. The economic health of Puget Sound is tied directly to Alaska as illustrated in a report commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County and Greater Seattle Chambers of Commerce. Of particular importance is oil production from the North Slope. Washington's refining industry purchases almost its entire crude oil stocks from Alaska. The report states that ``direct impacts from the refining of Alaska crude oil within the Puget Sound region include 1,990 jobs and $144.5 million in labor earnings. In 2003, oil refineries in Puget Sound imported $2.8 billion worth of crude oil from Alaska.'' Alaska oil provided 90 percent of the region's refinery needs. Washington's refineries provide much needed gasoline and jet fuel supplies to the Pacific northwest. Without the opportunity to expand production at the Cherry Point refinery, more than 300,000 gallons of fuel per day are lost. This is fuel desperately needed by consumers in both Washington and Oregon. Oregon has no refining. The refinery I mentioned is the one running Alaskan oil. Oil development is a major contributor to the health of Washington's economy. As oil wealth in the State of Alaska increases, so does the demand for Puget Sound goods and services. Perhaps this is why the chambers of commerce support balanced development of ANWR. They understand that with Prudhoe Bay declining--it today only produces around 950,000 barrels a day from a high of 2.1 million barrels--additional oil resources must be developed to ensure the continued economic viability of the Puget Sound region. The development of Prudhoe Bay contributed more than $1.6 billion into the Washington economy. ANWR alone is estimated to create over 12,000 new jobs in Washington alone, in addition to the revenues it will generate for the State. None of these benefits will take place if Senator Cantwell's motion is allowed to pass. Not only are decreasing oil output and declining revenues affecting the health of Washington, its major businesses are feeling the heat-- particularly the aviat1on industry. The rise in fuel prices is greatly impacting our aviation industries. Our airline industry has lost over $25 billion in the last 3 years. Sustained high jet fuel costs of $1.50 per gallon--which is almost triple that of 1998 and 1999--continues to hamper the health of this critical industry. Every dollar per barrel that the cost of oil rises costs the airline industry an additional $2 million per month. High energy prices also prevent job creation in the transportation sector. The Air Transport Association estimates that for every dollar increase in the price of fuel, they could fund almost 5,300 airline jobs. This should be particularly worrisome to those members who represent constituencies in the airline industry and those businesses that support the airline industry. At a time when Boeing, America's leading aerospace company, is struggling to reassert its dominance in the aviation field, the high prices of oil are devastating. Fuel costs are the second biggest costs for airlines. Given these high costs, airlines can not afford to purchase additional aircraft. And air transport, which generated revenues of $1.5 billion in 2003, are also at risk from high fuel prices. Washington State consumes 17.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, including 7.3 million gallons for gasoline and 2.5 million gallons per in jet fuel. It produces none of its oil. I ask the Senator from Washington, where will your constituents get oil if they do not get additional supplies from ANWR, when the pipeline in Alaska--the only known producing area--is declining almost daily? Twenty-four years ago, during the debate on Anilca, I worked closely with Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Paul Tsongas to ensure part of the coastal plain of Anwr remained open for oil and gas development. Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas promised oil and gas activity would take place in the coastal plain subject to an environmental impact statement which would have to be approved by Congress. In the spirit of compromise, they created section 1002 of Anilca, which set aside 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain of Anwr for oil and gas exploration and development. It is not wilderness. It has never been wilderness. It has never been withdrawn. It has always been available for oil and gas development. It was once passed by the Senate, and President Clinton vetoed the bill. I have fought now for 24 years to make sure that the promise made to me personally--made here on the floor of the Senate by Senators from Washington State and Massachusetts, Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas--and that promise has never been fulfilled. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 19 million acres. It is shown on this chart. The area set aside for oil and gas exploration the 1002 area, or the coastal plain is 1.5 million acres. Because of advances in technology, only 2,000 acres of this 1.5 million will be needed for production. To put this in perspective, ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. The area needed for development is about the size of Dulles Airport. Development in the Coastal Plain is the equivalent of building an airport in South Carolina. I want to go to chart 2 and show the Coastal Plain. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Coastal Plain holds between 5.7 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels of oil. Again, I emphasize that people are talking about 2 percent of the known reserves. We have a lot of unknown reserves, particularly in Alaska and the West, which have not been explored, and the area off our coast going toward Russia on the Outer Continental Shelf. Two-thirds of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States has not been explored. We are capable of producing, as the Senator from New Mexico said, a lot more oil and gas. We can produce 876,000 to 1.6 million barrels a day by developing the Coastal Plain. That would fulfill our pipeline backup. It is our country's single largest prospect for future oil production. And, the actual amount of recoverable oil could be much larger. Remember, the first estimates at Prudhoe Bay were that there would be 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil. In the last 30 years, we have recovered 14 billion. In 1973, at the time of the oil embargo, our country imported one- third of its petroleum. We now import almost 60 percent of our oil. By 2025, we will import almost 70 percent. American dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security. We now rely on unstable and unfriendly regimes to meet our energy needs. The coastal plain can produce over 36 million gallons of gasoline, jet and diesel fuel, heating oil, and other products a day. It can heat over 8.1 million homes, or provide all of the gasoline that Californians consume each day. America needs American oil. America needs this American oil. People who say it is only a day's supply are talking about if there were no other source of oil. It is a preposterous statement to say this area contains very little oil. In 2004, our merchandise trade deficit was $651.52 billion, 25.5 percent of this deficit came from net imports of crude and petroleum products, which cost over $166 billion. We are paying higher prices to meet our energy needs, and we are flushing jobs and money out of our economy. Americans are paying more for gasoline, heating fuel, and consumer products. In the past 4 years, the average price of gasoline has increased by $1.84 a gallon--that's a 75 percent increase! For every $1 billion we spend to develop our domestic resources, we create 12,500 jobs. This means in 2003 we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil instead of producing it here--1.3 million jobs outsourced in order to bring oil from other sources. By developing our resources on the coastal-plain, we will create between 700,000 and 1 million American jobs. We will put up to $60 million back into the U.S. economy each day instead of sending it to foreign countries. Probably one of the things most important to me is that our Alaska Native people overwhelmingly support development on this Coastal Plain. Out of the 231 Alaska Native villages, only one has opposed this. Yet they are the poster children for all of these environmental ads you see. One, the Gwich'in Village, opposes the initiative in this bill. Alaskans overwhelmingly support development in the Coastal Plain; they know we can develop this resource in an environmentally responsible way. Alaska natives overwhelmingly support development on the Coastal Plain. Of 231 Alaska native villages, only one--the Gwich'in--opposes development. And the tide of public opinion among all Americans has begun to turn; they know development in the Coastal Plain will help lower energy prices, reduce our dependence on unstable and unfriendly regimes, and grow our economy. Let me turn to charts 4 and 5 because I think this is very important. We constantly hear that this is a pristine place, the most beautiful place on Earth. That is the area in wintertime. I defy anyone to say that is a beautiful place that has to be preserved for the future. It is a barren wasteland, a frozen wasteland, and there are no porcupine caribou at all there during that period of time. The Coastal Plain is a frozen, barren land for 9 months of the year with an average temperature of minus 50 degrees. A majority of wildlife species use the foothills of the Brooks Range, about 60 miles from the Coastal Plain. Put up the other chart, please. This is what it looks like in the summertime. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, the great partner I have, showed where there was one well drilled with a 6-foot pipe sticking up. The rest of it is constant, constant tundra, no trees, no beauty at all. The porcupine caribou herd uses the Coastal Plain for only 6-8 weeks per year, when development will not take place. The herd spends the majority of its time in Canada, which has no seasonal or bag limits for native residents. It is estimated that an average of 2,900 caribou are harvested in Canada each year. There is no evidence that oil development will harm the porcupine herd. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. The central Arctic herd at Prudhoe Bay has grown ten fold, from 3,000 in 1974 to over 30,000 today. There is no evidence that oil development has harmed the reproductive activities of polar bears, a replica of which I proudly wear on this tie. Resource development and conservation are not mutually exclusive. Oil and gas companies use ice pads and roads to protect tundra and the ecosystem. They employ directional and multi-lateral drilling to reach reservoirs of oil and gas, which reduces the impact to the land. In fact, the Clinton administration issued a report which demonstrated that oil and gas can be removed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Development of the Coastal Plain will be subject to the strictest environmental standards in the world. With these standards and our advanced technology, responsible development and conservation can coexist. Very clearly, a vote for this motion is a vote for the status quo, which my good friend Ronald Reagan used to say ``is Latin for `the mess we're in.' '' A vote for this motion closes our domestic energy resources to production. It's a vote for continuing to import more than 60 percent of our Nation's oil. It is a vote for outsourcing more than 1.3 million American jobs a year. A vote for this motion is a vote to increase home heating bills and transportation costs. It's a vote to diminish our national security by relying on rogue nations and unstable regimes for our energy needs. Who would expect a Senator to come to this Senate floor and offer an amendment that exports 1.3 million American jobs every year, will cost us $200 billion annually by 2025, and leaves our national security vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly regimes. But that's exactly what this motion does. A vote for this motion is not just a vote against developing our domestic resources on the Coastal Plain. It's a vote for closing our Nation's single greatest prospect for future oil production and backing out of the promise that was made to Alaskans--and all Americans--when Senators Scoop Jackson and Paul Tsongas created section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. A vote for this motion is a vote against Alaska Natives, who overwhelmingly support development on the Coastal Plain because they know we can balance stewardship and conservation with resource development. We cannot continue to increase our dependence on foreign oil. We have the capability to continue to increase our production of oil and gas. When you look at this proposal, this is an amendment to export 1.3 million American jobs overseas. It will cost us $200 billion annually by 2005. Why is it in this bill? That is the reason we want to stop that. We want to stem the flow of jobs leaving this country. We do not want to go beyond 60 in importing our oil. As a matter of fact, we want to reverse that. We want to go back to the promise that Senators Jackson and Tsongas made when they created this portion of this area, a reserve for exploration and development. The Coastal Plain has been set aside for exploration and development. I close with this: An old bull is what they call us when they reach my age in the Senate, World War II type. We remember when a Member's word meant something in the Senate and when the word of a Member who has left the Senate was still fulfilled. We remember when the Senate would do everything in its power to honor a promise. In our State, we quote Robert Service: ``A promise made is a debt unpaid.'' This is a debt unpaid to this Senate, to the country, to Alaska, to proceed with what Senators Jackson and Tsongas outlined in 1980, to explore for and develop that oil in the area, if it is possible to do so. I understand other Senators wish to be yielded time. How much time would the Senator like to have? I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I state for the record, we are prepared to accept this amendment, provided it waives the Byrd rule for further consideration by the Senate and also waives the Byrd rule as applied only to this amendment in a conference report when it returns to the Senate. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I am prepared to yield back the balance of our time if the Senator is. I yield back the balance of my time conditioned on the Senator yielding back the balance of her time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this amendment. This amendment puts what we call a hard date only 2 months after the January 28, 2008, auction required by the bill. That is when the auction will commence. It is too soon to move immediately to a hard date in April. The auction could take weeks to conduct, and even after it ends, there are several months necessary for the FCC to decide to whom to award the final licenses. Without the licenses, new wireless providers cannot build their systems, so a tremendous amount of spectrum would not be in use during this period of time. Importantly, the auction proceeds will not be available until the final licenses are issued. That would mean consumers would face having their analog TVs shut off before the converter box program could be implemented, as is suggested by our bill. American consumers will have to pay more to watch television if this amendment is adopted because the analog cutoff date Senator McCain's amendment requires is premature. The General Accounting Office and the Consumers Union estimate there are 20 million U.S. television households that rely upon over-the-air reception for their television signal. Broadcasting systems are ready to convert, but we cannot get this done until we have the converter sets so they can continue to watch their TVs. Their old sets will not respond to the converted signal. Over-the-air reliant households disproportionately represent America's most vulnerable. Low-income senior citizens are disproportionately dependent on over-the-air TV; 43 percent of Latino households rely solely on analog television; and African-American households are 22 percent reliant. We have picked this date based upon the recommendations of the Congressional Budget Office to maximize the return from the sale of the spectrum. It is money that is necessary.That is why this portion of the bill is here--to raise money. To the extent the money is not used for consumer boxes, a provision in our bill requires all money not used raised by the spectrum goes to reduce the deficit. It is a major deficit reduction concept. Having the hard date out to 2009 is going to raise more money. We need that additional money to add to the interoperability portions of the reconciliation bill before us. The April 7 date is simply too close, as I said in the beginning, to the auction date of January 28. There has to be time between the auction date and the hard date to ensure that the communications capability is there, the set-top boxes will be there, and that a portion of the television spectrum reserved for the first responders is going to be the first date available. Moving this date is not going to make it available sooner because of the time delay that will take place after the auction on January 28. It is just not physically possible to have a hard date that close to the auction date because of the time necessary to compute the value of these offers, to go through the process of accepting the high bids and having the people bring forth the money to assure they are sound. The whole concept of this bill has been to maximize the return. The House date is December 31, 2008. Ours is April of 2009. We moved it there to get away from the Christmas season, to get away from things such as the Super Bowl. The longer it goes, the longer people will buy new digital-ready televisions and will not have to rely upon the transponders--the set-top boxes, we call them--that will be purchased with this money. Our combination is, if we can get this bill passed this year, we will have Christmas 2006, 2007, and 2008 before we get to the point where we have to buy these set-top boxes. The more sets sold to new purchasers, the less it will cost to buy these boxes. I do hope the Senate will see the wisdom in what we have done. We are working closely with House Members on this issue. We believe we will reach an accommodation on the time, and it will be a 2009 date. I urge the Senate not to adopt the McCain amendment because it will destroy the process we are in, a very calculated process of ensuring that the auctions take place, and then following those auctions, there is enough of a period to satisfy the goal of raising the money in order that we may get to the total transition through the set-top boxes, 8911, interoperability, and all the things that follow in the amendment. For those who read our amendment, it is partially amended by the McCain provision. I don't know if there is anyone else to speak in opposition, but I urge the Senate not to adopt the amendment. Mr. President, is there any time left?

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. STEVENS. Again, it is an estimate. I appeal to let us go to conference and work this out. I favor putting as much money as possible into debt reduction, but there are some people who are going to have to have help in these disaster areas beyond the moneys we have already provided in the other systems. That argument will come to the Senate. I intend to support the concept of using a portion that we have earmarked, $250 million, and there is a move for that to become $1 billion. We are not spending the money. We are authorizing expenditures up to this amount. What is not expended for the programs goes to debt reduction. That is very important for the Senator to remember. If the Senator wishes to comment on my comments, I will yield. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we ought to make certain that the people are providing service to these analog sets now. The National Association of Broadcasters opposes this amendment. Furthermore, I oppose it for the main reason that we are bringing into this country enormous supplies of what are called digital television sets now, but they are not digital-ready. They are still analog, in effect. We wanted to put on this bill a provision that said you cannot bring into this country or manufacture in this country a set, from a certain date--say, 90 days from now--that is not digital-ready. It cannot operate without a converter box. The difficulty is, consumers are buying thousands and thousands and thousands--into the millions now--of sets, believing they are ready, but they are not ready. They are digital, but they are not digital-ready. They will not operate without a converter chip or converter box. Under the circumstances, we rely on the estimate of 73 million sets. Now, it isn't an argument: How many converter boxes should there be? Every set that is out there needs a converter box to operate. I am told by my staff, 20 million sets are sold annually, and still more than half of them are analog. There are a few of the very high-priced sets that are digital-ready. Some of these sets are in the bedrooms of the elderly. They are in elderly care centers. Every room has a little set. Now, who are we to say there are sets out there that don't get converter boxes? That may be determined at a later date by the Congress in a bill we have to bring forward, a new communications bill. But for this estimate now, we have to rely upon the estimate we have, that there are at least 73 million sets out there that need a converter box, once we reach the hard date. So that is where the $3 billion came from. Again, I thank my friend from Nevada for his kind comments. But we have to operate on the basis of dealing with the worst case in terms of providing money. We have done that. This is the worst case we can face, this $3 billion. So we have authorized up to $3 billion. To the extent it is not used, and not used for 9/11, not used for interoperability, not used for first responders, not used for disaster areas, it will go to debt reduction. Our committee has raised far more than was requested of us, and that is the problem. We have the luxury of an estimate that says the spectrum auction will bring in more than $10 billion. That may be conservative. Many of my people tell me, once we reach that hard date, the demand for this spectrum is going to be so large that we cannot even estimate the amount of money that is going to be there. So $3 billion is not out of hand. I urge my friend from Nevada to realize we are not appropriating the money. We are saying up to $3 billion. I urge the Senator not to change that now. Let us go to the House. Let us work with the best available information. Let us try to get this bill back to the Senate as a conference report before this year ends. If we do not do it and get that other amendment in there somewhere that limits the future production of analog, or less-than-digital-ready sets, this demand for money is going to go up. All those sets are being bought now. Those new sets need a converter box. They are not digital ready. So again, I thank my friend. I do not think there is anyone else who wants to speak on this amendment. I am prepared to yield back my time, based upon the Senator's comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, I want to state that this amendment restores $125 million previously appropriated to New York as part of the emergency supplemental bill under chapter 11, relief and recovery, passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Bush on January 10, 2002. The funds would be used for such purposes as mental health treatment and long-term health monitoring of rescue and recovery personnel. The amendment is fully offset. I ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. I call for the regular order. Cloture Motion

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleagues, Senator Murkowski, Senator Frist, and I offered the second amendment establishing the principle that if this type of money is to be made available to an area of disaster, it would come equally from the projects that are authorized under the highway bill and above the line area for bridges. In view of this vote taken, I would be willing to withdraw this amendment. I understand there is objection to that. There is already a unanimous consent request that the amendment be presented. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Again, I say some Members voted the way they did on the Coburn amendment because of the presence of this amendment and wish to be recorded in favor of this amendment. I yield my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that there be equal time for anyone to speak for 2 minutes, at least. I have 2 minutes on my side. I ask unanimous consent to allow 2 minutes for the Senator from Illinois on my amendment.