John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee. We tried to work out an accommodation on the amendment. They made a good-faith effort, and we were unable to do so. I also want to let the chairman and the ranking member know that the amendment I had filed dealing with eminent domain will not be offered. This is a very important issue. I do not believe government should be able to take private land for the purposes of private economic development. People are well aware of the case this deals with. It is of grave concern to a lot of Members. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee indicated they will have hearings on this matter next week. I look forward to a full discussion of the case and the issues associated with the taking of private land. I want the chairman and the ranking member to know I will not offer that amendment that has been filed.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to make some changes in the funding allocations that are found in this bill. I very much appreciate the work of the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member. I know, having served on the Appropriations Committee in the House, it is not an easy task. You are asked to set a lot of priorities, to make a lot of decisions about a good deal of money. It is not an easy task, but the purpose of bringing the bill to the floor is to give us an opportunity to adjust those priorities. I attempt to do so in this amendment in a couple of ways. In this amendment I increase the funding in two general areas: first, in the area of border security and prosecution of illegal aliens who have committed crimes. This is an area that I think many people would say is in crisis right now, the problem with securing our borders, the problem with illegal aliens, and specifically the problem of dealing with the costs associated with illegal aliens who are committing crimes, violent crimes and otherwise. In this amendment I increase funding for the Criminal Alien Assistance Program by $60 million. It is still well short of the funding that has been provided in the companion bill in the House. But it is an increase which I think will be well used. It deals in the area of illegal immigration and criminal alien assistance that I think most everyone agrees is in a crisis situation now with the state of emergency having been declared in parts of the Southwest to deal with this type of problem. Similarly, this amendment increases funding by $18 million for the Southwest Border Initiative that deals with prosecution, helping our Southwestern States deal with the costs associated with prosecuting aliens that have committed crimes against the laws of those States and the Federal Government. It brings that level of funding up to the President's level. I think the President's request in this particular area was well warranted, given how much attention has been given to the problem of illegal aliens in recent years. This increases funding in this critical area by $78 million. My amendment also provides additional funding of $50 million to transitional housing for women who have been exposed to domestic violence. This is a relatively new program. It is authorized at $30 million per year. The bill appropriates only $15 million. I would increase that to $30 million for this transitional housing program, which is part of the programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. Transitional housing is critical. It meets the needs of those who require emergency shelter services or crisis intervention. There is no other program funded by the Federal Government that provides transitional housing solely for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is not typically the case in the Federal Government. There are no other sources of funding, and we ought to provide funding at the authorized level. In the State of New Hampshire, there are 12 emergency shelters for battered women. The average length of stay is about 27 nights. Therein lies the immediate need for transitional housing. I think that is probably a story that is repeated in State after State. I think it is not only a worthwhile area but an area in need of funds, an area where there are no other programs at the Federal Government level for meeting this need. The funds that I allocate to deal with criminal alien prosecution and transitional housing for those affected by domestic violence will come from the Advanced Technology Program, APT. This is a program that has long been targeted for elimination. The funds over the last several years have been phased down. Last year, funding was provided only for existing contracts--for no new contracts. I think it makes sense to at lease hold the line at that level. So I scaled back funding to a level that is appropriate to cover all the existing contracts so anyone who has an obligation under ATP will have that obligation met. We simply would not provide funds for additional contracts. I think that is the right policy. I think the entire program should be phased down and eliminated for a few fundamental reasons. First and foremost, this duplicates what already exists in the private sector. The ATP program gives funding to private companies that are developing new programs. That is why we have a venture capital system. That is why we have the private banking system. That is why we have private equity funding--to support companies that are competing in the marketplace and developing new products every day. I used to work for a technology firm. We developed new products, and we certainly didn't look to the Federal Government to fund new product development. It is a historic marketplace because inevitably you will have a bureaucrat in Washington deciding which new product ideas get funding and which do not. That is not a good idea and not a good use of public resources--to try to pick winners and losers in the product development marketplace. Finally, these are funds, resources, public funding that are going to private companies, many of which are very profitable and very successful. We shouldn't have an industrial policy at the Federal level that provides unnecessary subsidies to private corporations. I think we can do better. We can find better areas in which to allocate these resources--dealing with illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegal aliens, and transitional housing for those affected by domestic violence. Those are certainly priorities that are much more significant, much more valuable, much more appropriate than a project that subsidizes private companies. The final point about the Advanced Technology Program: It has been allocated at over $100 million, $150 million to $200 million, depending on how far back in time you go. I simply ask my colleagues to consider, if they were at a company, say, that was developing microprocessors, and one of their competitors was being given a subsidy by the Federal Government to do the same thing, would you think that was fair? If you were developing heating equipment and one of your competitors was being given a product development subsidy by the Federal Government, would you think that was fair? This distorts the marketplace. It is simply not a good use of taxpayer money, but we only scale it back to the extent that all current obligations continue to be met. I think this is fair, it is the right thing to do, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor. notice of intent

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of an amendment that I had earlier sent to the desk.

Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3057 yesterday, which was accepted as part of a managers' package to increase economic support fund monies for Lebanon from $35 million to $40 million, and to increase the support of the American educational institutions in Lebanon out of those monies from $4 million to $6 million. I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in that regard. The Cedar Revolution, in which the people of Lebanon have expressed their frustration with outside interference in their internal affairs and with a sectarian brand of politics that has produced corruption, undemocratic practices, and a faltering economy, has inspired hope for major political transformation not only in Lebanon, but in other countries of the Middle East as well. It is important to express our support for the people of Lebanon, both symbolically and in concrete terms that will assist them in reviving their economy and in carrying forward a process of reform that still requires much effort and determination. Fortunately, the Agency for International development has for some years run a small but effective assistance program in the country, relying largely on American nongovernmental organizations and education institutions which operate in Lebanon. USAID therefore has the experience and the partners to efficiently put additional assistance to good use. The priorities should continue to be fostering fundamental democratic principles and economic recovery. My amendment recognizes, as has the Appropriations Committee in its bill, the special role of the American educational institutions in achieving these goals. The American schools in Lebanon, through scholarships that these funds make possible, prepare the next generation of leaders by graduating young men and women who have a solid understanding of the forces of globalization, are committed to democratic values, and have the skills to reform their societies and bridge the differences between those societies and the West. Young leaders such as these will assure the future not just of Lebanon, but of the region as a whole. Lebanon benefits when such men and women from throughout the Middle East are educated at the renowned American schools in the country, as does the United States. It is therefore my intention that scholarship funds made available for these schools can be provided for students from any country within the region.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, in discussing this trade bill earlier today, and throughout the day, I think a lot of mention has been made of specific firms--firms that over the past number of years have been affected by international trade. There was a list on the floor that included companies such as Levi's and Fruit of the Loom. That is a fact. These companies have been affected. They are eligible for the Trade Adjustment and Assistance Program, and that is one of the challenges of the job that we do as elected representatives. We see firms in States grow, but we also see them have to deal with challenges of competition, both domestic and international competition. In New Hampshire, my home State, we have had an electronics firm that saw its plastic molding jobs go to Mexico. But even more recently, we have seen a firm that did meat processing lose 500 or 600 jobs to some Midwestern States. So we see competition not just from overseas but domestically as well. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the jobs that are created. Over the past year, I think 2.5 million jobs have been created in the United States. Over the last decade, it is a significantly greater number than that. It has been in areas like software, pharmaceuticals, and financial services--significant, value-added, high-paying jobs. That brings me back to the very basic question of why we even trade in the first place. We trade, and I support expanding opportunities for trade and knocking down barriers to trade because it creates opportunities for consumers. It gives our consumers in America the opportunity and the freedom to buy the products they want, to purchase the goods and services that they want to choose. It gives them access to products and services that they would not otherwise have. It is good for American consumers, and it is good for our economy. It gives firms, large and small, in a similar way access to cheaper, affordable goods and services, and trade allows American individuals, American companies to focus on what we do best, thereby improving our productivity here at home. We want trade to be fair. Everyone talks about fair trade. If we look at the tariffs that exist today--this is a small card that was prepared by the chairman of the Finance Committee, but it highlights what we pay now in tariffs of products coming into the United States: 10 percent, 16 percent, 11 percent, 12 percent on products such as petroleum or chemicals, metals and metal products, motor vehicles and parts. We pay 10, 12 or 15 percent in tariffs, and the countries that are affected by this agreement today pay zero. We pay 10 or 12 percent, they pay zero. What this trade agreement will do is knock that tariff that U.S. companies and consumers pay down to zero on all the products I just mentioned. That is why this is a step in the right direction. That is why an agreement such as this that lowers tariffs benefits consumers, creates a stronger global economy, but perhaps most important of all is good and right for the U.S. economy. I am very pleased to support S. 1307. I know it is very difficult for the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee to move something like this through their committee, but I appreciate their work and congratulate them for their work and urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, is my amendment the pending business?

Mr. SUNUNU. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, it is always frustrating when different people are working with different numbers. The suggestion was made that the program costs about $22 million. I have here the Forest Service budget submission for the coming fiscal year as well as data on fiscal years 2004 and 2005. For this region's two forests, Chugach and Tongass--there is no forest, paper, or timber program in the Chugach, so we have two line items. One is forest products, $23.342 million. The other is roads, $22.325 million. That adds up to more than $45 million in their budget estimate for fiscal year 2005. If you look at fiscal year 2004, forest products is $27.379 million and roads is $21.273 million. That adds up to nearly $49 million. And if you look at the coming fiscal year, fiscal year 2006, the budget request for forest products is $21.462 million and for roads it is $17.306 million. That adds up to almost $39 million. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. SUNUNU. I yield our remaining time to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, we are preparing to vote on an amendment that I think does justice to the taxpayers. It doesn't make any sense to have a timber program that costs the taxpayers nearly $49 million but yields less than $1 million in revenue. Unfortunately, that is the situation we have in the Tongass. A significant portion of funding goes to building roads that support the efforts of private timber companies. I don't think it is too much to ask to simply require that those companies pay the expense of the road building themselves and not ask the taxpayers to provide that subsidy. This is a straightforward amendment. It doesn't change any designation on land. It doesn't create any new wilderness area. It doesn't create any new roadless areas. It simply says for timber operations to continue, the private timber firms must put up the money to build the roads. I am a strong supporter and will remain a strong supporter of a multiuse concept for the national forests. It makes sense because they are important places. They are places that should be able to be enjoyed for recreation hunting or fishing or snowmobiling--and they have economic uses as well. Where the taxpayers are concerned, where Federal funds are concerned, we need to be a little bit more cautious, especially in a time when we have $300 or $350 billion deficits. Spending nearly $49 million, which was the tally in fiscal year 2004, for a program that yields revenues of $800,000 doesn't make any sense. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, the issue here isn't the cost to manage a national forest because we recognize national forests are special places. We want to manage them. We want to operate them. We want to run them for the enjoyment of people, and different forests are going to have different requirements and different costs associated with that management. Whether it is $1 an acre or $1,000 an acre, we want them to be run in an efficient way. It is not about the cost of management. It is not about the profitability of a timber program. As was pointed out, most of the timber programs technically lose money on a profit-and-loss basis. What it is really about is, in looking at those timber programs, should the taxpayers pay for the costs of building the roads, or is that a cost that should be borne by the private enterprise? That is what this debate is about and the answer is no. Certainly, in the case of the Tongass, that is an area where more money is being spent to build more roads to benefit private companies with the least return imaginable. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. SUNUNU. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SUNUNU

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment. I had an opportunity to present more complete remarks last night so I will try to speak briefly this evening. I appreciate the work of both Senators from Alaska and understand that this is naturally an issue of great personal interest and commitment for them. I wanted to address briefly a few of the general remarks that were made, especially those, for obvious reasons, that referred to me. First, I do not think I have ever been accused of being an extreme environmentalist. I certainly do not consider myself an extreme environmentalist. In that regard, I believe one simply has to look at the basic premise of this amendment. It does not create a new wilderness designation. For my part, I have opposed President Clinton's roadless initiative. I have supported the multiuse concept in national forest land across the entire country and will continue to do so. So I just do not think it is fair or appropriate to throw around a label like that cavalierly, and I trust that it was not meant that way. Second, I emphasize the point that from my perspective, this is about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint. The suggestion was made a number of times that it was not. Frankly, I do not think that is quite appropriate because it suggests a set of motives that just are not there. One does not have to go any further than the amendment I offered last week to the Energy bill to strike some of the more egregious taxpayer subsidies in that Energy legislation or my vote against the highway bill that broke the budget or my vote against a prescription drug bill that we knew then and we know now had costs far in excess of its prescribed $400 billion or my vote against the Energy bill in its final form today. I believe it is fair to stand on my record that the votes I have cast, the amendments I have offered of this type that have dealt with taxpayer subsidies, have all been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is doing what I believe is appropriate and right when we are handling taxpayer resources. In the case of the support and the subsidies that go to private logging firms, I believe we have to draw a line somewhere. When we look at the Tongass and see $49 million in costs for a timber program that yields for the taxpayers $800,000 in revenues, something is not right. The opponents of the amendment will say: Well, only $15 million, $20 million, or $25 million is going directly for the cost of building roads. But in my book, $25 million for $800,000 in revenue is still a pretty bad deal. There are a lot of reasons listed for the high cost of a timber program on the national forests, and I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised: high legal costs, an unbearable bureaucracy, regulatory costs associated with not just completing, in some cases, redundant environmental studies but then defending them in court. I am willing and I have voted in the past to support efforts to deal directly with those costs and to support efforts to allow appropriate consideration, but deliberate consideration, of those challenges. I will continue to do so. Because there are such things as frivolous lawsuits that are in the pipeline does not justify a $15 million subsidy or a $25 million subsidy or a $35 million subsidy or a $48 million subsidy. The subsidy itself cannot and should not be used to defend or respond to bad behavior in other ways. So we need to fight those costs, the legal abuses, and burdensome environmental regulations that are not appropriately applied, but those issues are separate from the question of whether we should use taxpayer funds to subsidize the construction of roads to support private timber firms. Again, I come back to the basic point that this is about fiscal responsibility. When I hear that phrase, ``this is not about fiscal responsibility,'' it really has to be read as questioning my motives or, frankly, the motives of any of those who are supporting this amendment. I do not think the Senate floor is the appropriate place for that kind of a question. The facts are pretty straightforward. In fiscal year 2004, the timber program on the Tongass cost $49 million, and $800,000 was yielded in revenues. That does not mean that profitability as applied to a private firm should be the standard for any multiuse effort or any effort to harvest timber on national forest lands because we know national forest lands are unique, and we know that the Forest Service has to be involved in doing things that many private timber firms either cannot or would not be asked to do in the private sector. So I recognize that. The Senator from Alaska made a point that the loss in New Hampshire in the timber program was about $800,000. If so, I would hope that over time we can do better than that in my state, but there is a big difference between $800,000 and $48 million. The disparity of cost or the costs associated per million board feet taken out are similarly quite significant, the loss per million board feet in New Hampshire being approximately one-third of that in the Tongass in data that I have seen. So profit should not be the standard, but at the same time it is hard for me to justify taxpayers paying the cost of the roads. I do not think asking private firms to pay for the cost of building the roads to access the timber they purchase is too much of a burden to bear. Finally, with regard to the multiuse concept that was mentioned, I strongly support the development and application of forest plans that are put together locally using local stakeholders. It has been very successful in New Hampshire. I imagine it has been successful in other parts of the country. In New Hampshire, we enjoy national forest lands for recreation, hunting, fishing, economic interests, and a timber management program. But even where multiple use is concerned, we need to strike a balance, a balance between the taxpayers' interest and a balance between the long-term health of the forest itself. Where the taxpayers are concerned, a subsidy of $45 million or $48 million per year, stretching as far as the eye can see at this particular time, is unnecessary. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I hope this at least can lay the foundation for looking at subsidies not just in this industry but in other areas with a little bit of a sharper eye. At a time when we have $300 billion or $400 billion deficits, I do not think there is any area of the budget that does not deserve tougher scrutiny. I yield the floor.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my behalf, but also on behalf of Senator Bingaman, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators McCain and Feingold be added as cosponsors.

Mr. SUNUNU. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It reads very simply: To place a restriction on the use of Federal taxpayer funds to be used to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest on behalf of private companies. This is a case where we need to be very careful about providing Federal subsidies for private corporations. This was a topic of discussion during some of the remarks I made on the Energy bill and I have raised this issue many times in the past. We need to be careful about using Federal resources to provide subsidies for private companies because it distorts the marketplace, promotes inefficiencies, and isn't good stewardship of Federal resources. In 2004, the Federal Government, through the Forest Service, spent between $45 and $50 million building logging roads in this segment of the national forest. They took in roughly $1 million in revenues. I would like to make sure we give the benefit of the doubt any time we are spending money. We understand it can have economic impacts, it can create jobs and the like, but to spend $45 or $50 million on programs that provide $1 million in revenues when there is a timber sale seems like an enormous inequity to me. If you compound these shortfalls over 20 years, the losses amount to between $750 and $850 million. I don't think this is an appropriate use of Federal resources. I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Bingaman. I hope it will restore a little bit of fiscal restraint and balance to this Interior appropriations bill. It is important to recognize what this amendment does not do because, as the debate is carried forward, I want to make sure that concerns raised speak to the amendment and not to other issues. What this amendment does not do is prohibit logging in the Tongass or any other segment of our national forest. It doesn't change policy regarding logging in any substantive way. It doesn't curtail uses in the national forest, again, in the Tongass or anywhere else in the country. I come from a State, New Hampshire, that has a great tradition of multiple use in our national forest system--recreational use, economic operations, timber program, hunting, fishing. It is a true multiuse forest. I believe that general approach to our national forest makes the most sense. Finally, this amendment does not restrict the use of private funds to build logging roads. I don't think that is inappropriate in any way. If we have a timber sale on any segment of the national forest, that should be conducted in an open, transparent way, but the market should dictate the attractiveness of a particular cut, the sale of that timber, the pricing, and the like. People who speak to this amendment may well raise concerns about regulation, about legal barriers and legal obstacles, about subsidies that other timber concerns in other countries may enjoy. Those are all valid concerns. I have stepped forward to try to address those concerns to allow timber management, an important segment of our economy, to operate in a fair and reasonable way. But this amendment doesn't address or solve or make worse any of those concerns. Those are issues that we need to continue to address. We should have reasonable regulatory processes that are understandable, that allow appropriate timber sales and logging operations to continue on national forest land. We should do everything in our power to minimize frivolous lawsuits throughout our economy but also those types of frivolous lawsuits that might necessarily hinder and raise the cost of the timber program. And, of course, there are subsidies being provided by other countries. New Hampshire and Canada share a border, and the issue of subsidies in the timber industry--placing operations in the United States at a competitive disadvantage--is something that I have dealt with time and time again. But all this amendment does is say we will no longer use Federal funds to support the building, construction, and planning and development of roads for private entities in the Tongass. When you have a cost of $45 or $50 million for revenue of just $1 million, you don't have to be an economist to understand why this amendment makes good, common sense for the taxpayer. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been endorsed by a number of groups who are looking at this matter from a purely fiscal perspective and doing what is right for taxpayers. It reflects much more commonsense use of Federal resources. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1029

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, there are nearly $4 billion in estimated loan guarantees over the next 5 years in this title. Those absolutely will cost the Federal Government something. That is exactly why money, $400 million, has to be appropriated to support them. I was pleased to work on this amendment with Senator Wyden to whom I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden. This is a very comprehensive energy bill. As I have said before on this floor and outside this Chamber, I think it is probably much too comprehensive an energy bill; there is too much in it; it is too large; it spends too much money. There are authorizations. There is mandatory spending. We, unfortunately, voted to waive the budget limitations in our budget resolution earlier today. There is an $11 billion tax package that creates all manner of incentives and subsidies for producing energy. It is time that we exercise just a little bit of restraint, and the amendment I offer this afternoon with Senator Wyden would do just that in one particular area, and that is in the area of loan guarantees for building new powerplants. We need a competitive energy sector including nuclear power, coal, gas, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. And we should do everything possible to establish a competitive marketplace that avoids trying to pick winners and losers in that energy production marketplace. Unfortunately, in too many areas, this bill fails to do so. In particular, this title provides loan guarantees--taxpayer subsidized loan guarantees--for building new privately owned powerplants. That simply is not sound economic policy, sound fiscal policy, or sound energy policy. They could be coal plants. They could be nuclear plants. They could be renewable energy plants. Over the course of the 5-year authorization in this bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that nearly $4 billion worth of loan guarantees will be offered at a cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. But the potential cost could be much higher because the Federal Government and the taxpayers would be on the hook for the full subsidy, the full cost of those loans. The Congressional Budget Office says the following in their report on the Energy bill: Under the bill, the Department of Energy could sell, manage, or hire contractors to take over a facility to recoup losses in the event of a default or it could take over a loan and make payments on behalf of the borrowers. These are private sector borrowers. Such payments could result in the Department of Energy-- That is the Federal Government and the taxpayers-- effectively providing a direct loan with as much as a 100- percent subsidy rate. That just is not sound economic policy. The administration, through its budget office, states that ``the administration is concerned about the potential cost of the bill's new Department of Energy programs to provide 100 percent federally guaranteed loans for a wide range of commercial or near commercial technologies.'' Therein lies the heart of the problem. We are subsidizing, providing loan guarantees for privately owned and operated and profitable powerplants, whether coal or nuclear or renewable energy. It is not sound economic policy. Our amendment simply strikes this portion of the bill. There is still $11 billion in tax subsidies to every conceivable kind of energy production. There is still an 8-billion-gallon mandate to purchase ethanol and it still contains a taxpayer subsidy for ethanol. This does not touch the electricity title. It does not touch the authorization for the clean coal technologies or fossil fuel research and development or other areas in the bill that provide subsidies to successful private companies. We are just trying to target this loan guarantee which just does not make any sense. It would be a new program. It is a terrible precedent, putting the taxpayers on the hook for billion-dollar loans to successful private profitable corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by a number of taxpayer groups concerned about the size and scope of Government--Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Taxpayers Union. It also is supported by the Sierra Club and a host of other environmental groups that are focused on good environmental policy as well as good energy policy. I reserve the remainder of our time.