Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act

Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution pursuant to the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the final rule promulgated by USDA that designates Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE.

I am taking this action because opening our border to Canadian cattle imports at this time is premature. Allowing the BSE rule to go forward could have very serious consequences for the human and animal health in this country. Reopening the border poses serious economic risks for the U.S. cattle industry. And it complicates our efforts to reopen export markets.

BSE is an extremely dangerous disease. After BSE was first identified in England in 1986, Europe was forced to destroy millions of head of cattle. And, around the world, dozens of human deaths from Creutzfeld-- Jacob's Disease have since been linked to BSE. So we must be very careful before we consider opening our border to imports from a country known to have BSE.

Since the European outbreak, scientists from around the world have been engaged in efforts to learn more about the disease. They have developed methods to test, control, and eradicate BSE. Through the International Organization for Animal Health, known as the OIE, experts have designed science-based standards for the safe trade of beef products and live cattle from countries that have or may have BSE. In particular, because BSE is transmitted through livestock feed contaminated with animal proteins containing BSE, it is critical that countries adopt measures to ensure that animal proteins and other specified risk materials are not present in cattle feed.

Unfortunately, the USDA does not appear to have fully followed OIE guidelines in developing its rules. Moreover, with respect to Canada, USDA has not done a thorough evaluation to ensure that Canada's cattle feed is not contaminated with animal proteins.

The United States has appropriately blocked cattle imports from Canada since Canada confirmed its first indigenous case of BSE in May of 2003. Concerns were only heightened when BSE was confirmed in a dairy cow of Canadian origin in Washington State in December of 2003. This case resulted in many important U.S. trading partners banning the importation of U.S. cattle and beef products--a situation that continues today with regard to some of our most important customers.

So it is very important that USDA move slowly and deliberately and evaluate all possible risks before re-opening the border to Canadian cattle.

But the USDA rule does not do this. In particular, Canada has not effectively implemented measures to contain and control BSE for 8 years, as required by the OIE. Moreover, USDA has applied a very loose and flexible interpretation to the specific recommendations developed by the OIE.

Since USDA announced its proposed final rule designating Canada as a Minimum-Risk Region for BSE, Canada has confirmed two additional BSE cases. The most recent one is particularly disturbing because it involves a cow born several months after Canada implemented its ban on animal proteins in cattle feed. This raises serious questions about whether the Canadian feed ban is being effectively enforced.

These questions are only reinforced by other evidence of lax enforcement in Canada.

For example, numerous Canadian newspapers have reported that Canadian Food Inspection Agency tests indicate a disturbingly high level of non- compliance with Canada's overall livestock feed regulations.

An article in the Vancouver Sun indicates that secret tests found animal proteins that violated Canada's feed regulations in 41 of 70 Canadian feed samples. More than half of these ``vegetarian'' feed samples contained animal proteins. More than half. Clearly, feed regulation compliance in Canada is not up to par.

Since October, 2003, our own Food and Drug Administration has issued 19 import alerts concerning imported Canadian feed products that are contaminated with illegal animal proteins. Eight of those import alerts against Canadian livestock feed manufacturers are still in force.

Finally, Canada has recently issued new rules to further restrict the Use of animal proteins in livestock feed as well as in fertilizer. Canada's own justification for tightening its regulations is to reduce the potential for the cross contamination of livestock feed products and fertilizers with animal proteins that might contain the BSE prions. To me, this suggests that even

Canadian officials are concerned that the enforcement and compliance with existing regulations may be inadequate.

In addition, as noted in a letter I, along with Senators Harkin, Johnson and Salazar, recently sent to Secretary of Agriculture Johanns, there is concern, that not enough time has elapsed to be sure that Canada's education, surveillance and testing measures are truly indicative of their level of BSE risk.

The bottom line is this. Canada has not achieved the necessary level of compliance with OIE rules to justify designating it as a minimal risk region.

Canada's failure to enforce its BSE measures could have serious consequences if USDA proceeds to reopen the border.

First and most obviously, it would create potential dangers for consumers in this country.

Second, it would pose dangers for the health of our U.S. cattle herd.

Third, even if we do not end up with BSE-tainted imports, the perception of heightened risk for consumers could have adverse economic consequences for the U.S. cattle industry.

Finally, our major export markets have remained closed to U.S. beef exports, even though there has been no indigenous case of BSE in the U.S. I fear that reopening the border now, before we have reached agreement on reopening our export markets, will only give our trade partners an excuse to further delay reopening these critical markets for U.S. producers.

Yesterday's announcement by Secretary Johanns to restrict the importation of Canadian beef products to those from cattle under 30 months of age is a small step in the right direction. However, this announcement does not address the unresolved concerns about Canada's compliance with its feed regulations, which has been cited as the primary basis for extending a Minimal-Risk Region designation to Canada.

It was my hope that our new Secretary of Agriculture would withdraw the proposal to resume trade with Canada when he learned of these serious issues. But it now appears that the only way to stop this rule from going forward is for the Congress to block it. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval.

Then perhaps we can have a meaningful dialogue on how to move forward in a way that will ensure the safety of the U.S. cattle herd and help open export markets. Our consumers and livestock producers deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., to mark up S. 418 ``Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act,'' as amended by the committee print; S. 811 ``Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act,'' and to vote on the nominations of Ms. Sheila C. Bair, of Kansas, to be a member and chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Ms. Kathleen L. Casey, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be President of the Government National Mortgage Association; Mr. Donald L. Kohn, of Virginia, to be vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Mr. James B. Lockhart III, of Connecticut, to be the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Immediately following the mark up, the committee will meet in open session to conduct a hearing on ``FASB's Proposed Standard on `Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans.' ''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Extension of HUD's Mark-to-Market Program.''

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to consider whether potential liability deters abandoned hard rock mine clean up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 2145, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005;

2. S. 1554, a bill to establish an intergovernmental grant program to identify and develop homeland security information, equipment, capabilities, technologies, and services to further the homeland security of the United States and to address the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments;

3. S. 1741, Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act;

4. S. 1838, Federal and District of Columbia Real Property Act of 2005;

5. S. 2068, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia;

6. S. 2146, a bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees;

7. S. 2296, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act;

8. H.R. 3508, 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.

Post Office Naming Bills

1. S. 2228/H.R. 4456, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway Station;''

2. S. 2376/H.R. 3934, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building;''

3. S. 2722, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building;

4. H.R. 4108, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office Building;''

5. H.R. 3440, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 100 Avenida RL Rodriguez in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, as the ``Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building;''

6. H.R. 4786, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, as the ``H. Gordon Payrow Post Office Building;''

7. H.R. 4561, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Franciso `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building;''

8. H.R. 4688, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Boyden Street in Badin, North Carolina, as the ``Mayor John Thompson `Tom' Garrison Memorial Post Office;''

9. H.R. 4995, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, New York, as the ``Ronald Bucca Post Office;''

10. H.R. 3549, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. Clinger Jr. Post Office Building;''

11. H.R. 2977, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, Montana, as the ``Paul Kasten Post Office Building;''

12. S. 2690, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office;''

13. S. 3187, a bill to designate the Post Office located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office;''

14. H.R. 5245, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the ``Matthew Lyon Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act and S. 1535, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list:

Panel I: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and The Honorable William Kovacic, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Alternative Energy Technologies.

Mr. President, I rise today again with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Artist-Museum Partnership Act.'' This bipartisan legislation will enable our country to keep cherished art works in the United States and to preserve them in our public institutions, while erasing an inequity in our tax code that currently serves as a disincentive for artists to donate their works to museums and libraries. This is the same bill we introduced the past three Congresses. It was also included in the Senate-passed version of the President's 2001 tax cut bill, and in the Senate-passed version of the 2003 Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, CARE, Act. I would like to thank Senators Bingaman, Cantwell, Cochran, Conrad, Dodd, Durbin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Lugar, Stevens and Warner for cosponsoring this bipartisan bill.

Our bill is sensible and straightforward. It would allow artists, writers, and composers who donate works to museums and libraries to take a tax deduction equal to the fair market value of the work. This is something that collectors who make similar donations are already able to do. Under current law, artists who donate self-created works are only able to deduct the cost of supplies such as canvas, pen, paper and ink, which does not even come close to their true value. This is unfair to artists and it hurts museums and libraries--large and small-- that are dedicated to preserving works for posterity. If we as a nation want to ensure that art works created by living artists are available to the public in the future--for study or for pleasure--this is something that artists should be allowed to do.

In my State of Vermont, we are incredibly proud of the great works produced by hundreds of local artists who choose to live and work in the Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in museums and libraries helps

develop a sense of pride among Vermonters and strengthens a bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty, and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result, knows the tremendous value of these works. I would like to see more of them, not fewer, preserved in Vermont and across the country.

Prior to 1969, artists and collectors alike were able to take a deduction equivalent to the fair market value of a work, but Congress changed the law with respect to artists in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. Since then, fewer and fewer artists have donated their works to museums and cultural institutions. The sharp decline in donations to the Library of Congress clearly illustrates this point. Until 1969, the Library of Congress received 15 to 20 large gifts of manuscripts from authors each year. In the four years following the elimination of the deduction, the Library received only one such gift. Instead, many of these works have been sold to private collectors and are no longer available to the general public.

For example, prior to the enactment of the 1969 law, Igor Stravinsky planned to donate his papers to the Music Division of the Library of Congress. But after the law passed, his papers were sold instead to a private foundation in Switzerland. We can no longer afford this massive loss to our cultural heritage. Losses like this are an unintended consequence of the 1969 tax bill that should now be corrected.

Congress changed the law for artists more than 30 years ago in response to the perception that some taxpayers were taking advantage of the law by inflating the market value of self-created works. Since that time, however, the government has cut down significantly on the abuse of fair market value determinations. Under this legislation, artists who donate their own paintings, manuscripts, compositions, or scholarly compositions would be subject to the same new rules that all taxpayer/ collectors who donate such works must now follow. This includes providing relevant information as to the value of the gift, providing appraisals by qualified appraisers, and, in some cases, subjecting them to review by the Internal Revenue Service's Art Advisory Panel.

In addition, donated works must be accepted by museums and libraries, which often have strict criteria in place for works they intend to display. The institution must certify that it intends to put the work to a use that is related to the institution's tax exempt status. For example, a painting contributed to an educational institution must be used by that organization for educational purposes and could not be sold by the institution for profit. Similarly, a work could not be donated to a hospital or other charitable institution that did not intend to use the work in a manner related to the function constituting the recipient's exemption under Section 501 of the tax code. Finally, the fair market value of the work could only be deducted from the portion of the artist's income that has come from the sale of similar works or related activities.

This bill would also correct another disparity in the tax treatment of self-created works--how the same work is treated before and after an artist's death. While living artists may only deduct the material costs of donations, donations of those same works after death are deductible from estate taxes at the fair market value of the work. In addition, when an artist dies, works that are part of his or her estate are taxed on the fair market value.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated that our bill would cost $50 million over 10 years. This is a moderate price to pay for our education and the preservation of our cultural heritage.

I want to thank my colleagues again for cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. The time has come for us to correct an unintended consequence of the 1969 law and encourage rather than discourage the donations of art works by their creators. This bill will make a critical difference in an artist's decision to donate his or her work, rather than sell it to a private party where it may become lost to the public forever. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past several years, among the most challenging issues for this Congress has been reform of the Nation's energy policy.

Despite rising fuel costs and growing dependence on imported oil, despite evidence of global warming and concerns about the quality of our air and water, despite all the recent advances in renewable energy technology, we hobble along on an energy policy that is more than a decade out of date.

Fortunately, there are several initiatives in energy policy on which there is wide bipartisan support.

Perhaps the best example of an idea on which there is solid agreement is the importance of developing our hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen has the potential to transform completely the way we think of transportation, with vehicles that consume no foreign oil, spew no smog, no toxic emissions, and zero greenhouse gases. But only if we make it the right way.

You see, to get energy out of hydrogen, first you have to make it. And the way we make it is going to make all the difference to our energy future.

Right now, the main way we make hydrogen is from natural gas.

Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but its price is volatile. And as a fossil fuel, it is a finite resource and releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when burned.

Ultimately, we hope to form hydrogen from pollution-free water, using wind or solar energy to extract the hydrogen--the H2--from the H2O. But this technology is still too expensive to make a significant contribution to our energy needs today.

Thanks to research at some of the country's leading institutions, including those in my state of Iowa, a cost-effective technology is now available to produce hydrogen from another clean, renewable energy source: one that we grow right here at home.

Hydrogen can now be formed from ethanol made entirely from corn and other agricultural products grown right here on American farms.

Ethanol is an increasingly important source of fuel. It is made from corn and other agricultural products from farms throughout the Midwest and increasingly in other parts of the country. It is manufactured in plants scattered across rural America, and has become one of the most important value-added enterprises for our rural economies.

Today, ethanol is made from corn, as well as from crop residues, stalks, and other low-cost biomass.

By blending ethanol into conventional gasoline we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, support rural economies, and make a cleaner- burning fuel. But even blended fuel produces some pollution, and we still depend on imported oil for the gasoline component.

A vital next step is to begin using ethanol to make hydrogen. Hydrogen from ethanol produces little in the way of pollution. Whatever carbon dioxide is released gets absorbed by next year's crop as it grows; and it's possibly the most economical way to make renewable hydrogen for the foreseeable future.

Imagine hydrogen ``Made in the USA'' from crops ``Grown in the USA'' with generating facilities in rural communities in desperate need of jobs and economic growth.

So why aren't all of our cars being converted to run on renewable farm-based hydrogen? As we all know, the fuel cells needed to convert that hydrogen efficiently into usable energy are still years from being commercially ready.

However, hydrogen-powered internal combustion hybrid electric engines have been developed that can achieve over 90 percent of the environmental benefits and 100 percent of the reduced oil import benefits of fuel cells, and this technology is ready for demonstration right now.

American businesses are ready to show the world that hydrogen can be produced from clean, farm-based renewable sources, and that renewable hydrogen can be used as a fuel for our cars and trucks.

As we debate the bigger picture of our Nation's energy policy, we have the opportunity to make a small investment with huge potential.

Now is the time for a renewable hydrogen transportation demonstration program.

I am introducing the Renewable Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Act of 2005 to provide a testing ground for renewable farm-based hydrogen transportation technology. We need to get renewable hydrogen production out into fueling stations, where it can be put through its paces, analyzed and improved for the day when fuel cells arrive, so we can supply our fuel cells with clean, renewable hydrogen right from day one.

This bill would authorize $5 million over three years to develop and demonstrate the cost-effective operation of a small hydrogen-from- ethanol reformer and a fleet of at least 10 internal combustion hybrid electric vehicles converted to run on that hydrogen.

The program would allow investors, manufacturers and entrepreneurs to see first-hand that clean renewable hydrogen can be cost-effectively produced from farm-based fuels; that the technology to run our vehicles on renewable hydrogen is here and ready to deploy; and that renewable hydrogen is ready for the day that fuel cell vehicles arrive in local showrooms.

The successful demonstration will help stimulate development of hydrogen fueling systems at existing gasoline fueling stations to convert ethanol to hydrogen onsite, thereby significantly accelerating the adoption of super-clean domestic renewable hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline made from imported oil.

It includes monitoring of emissions and fuel economy data, quick start-up and rapid deployment--all for a tiny fraction of the funds already being invested in fuel cell research.

This is not a large or costly initiative, but it is one that has the potential to take us a big step towards a clean, renewable hydrogen- based economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on August 2, 2006, at 2 p.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on the future of military commissions in light of the supreme court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 5 p.m., in closed session, regarding overhead imagery systems.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled ``Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Meeting the Housing Needs of Veterans.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2006, at 11:30 a.m., to purpose of this meeting is to consider the nominations of John Ray Correll, Mark Myers, and Drue Pearce.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing to discuss The Toxic Substances Control Act and the Chemicals Management Program at EPA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Border Insecurity, Take Two: Fake IDs Foil the First Line of Defense.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

The PRESIDING, OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August, 2, 2006, off the Senate floor at a time to be determined later.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons Learned in Contracting and Procurement.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act; S. 480, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2005; S. 660, the Lumbee Recognition Act; S. 1439, the Indian Trust Reform Act of 2005; and S. 1535, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists Under the War Crime Provisions of Title 18'' on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; General Richard B. Myers, Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC; Major General Scott Black, The Judge Advocate General, United States Army, Washington, DC; Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, Judge Advocate General, United States Navy, Washington, DC; Major General Jack Rives, the Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force, Washington, DC, and Brigadier General Kevin M. Sandkuhler, Director, Judge Advocate Division, United States Marine Corps, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Paying Your Own Way: Creating a Fair Standard for Attorney's Fees Awards in Establishment Clause Cases'' in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Rees Lloyd, Commander of District 21, The American Legion Department of California, Banning, CA; Marc Stern, Assistant Executive Director, American Jewish Congress, New York, NY; Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel, Interim Dean, Liberty University School of Law, Lynchburg, VA; Melissa Rogers, Visiting Professor of Religion and Public Policy, Wake Forest University Divinity School, Winston-Salem, NC; Shannon Woodruff, Senior Research Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, D.C.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on August 2, 2006, at 9 a.m. in SR-328A, Senate Russell Building. The purpose of this subcommittee hearing will be to discuss H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.