McGee Creek Project Pipeline and Associated Facilities Conveyance Act

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, with a possibility of a closed session, to receive testimony on the Department of the Navy in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program.

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 February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Semiannual Monetary Policy Report To Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to review the President's proposed Department of Transportation budget for the 2009 fiscal year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the impact of increased minimum wages on the economies of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Real Estate Market: Building a Strong Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on U.S. policy options in post-election Pakistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007, (Domenici, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy); S. 2449, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007, (Kohl, Leahy, Graham); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007, (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2136, Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007, (Durbin, Schumer, Whitehouse, Biden, Feinstein); and S. 2133, Home Owners ``Mortgage and Equity Savings Act'', (Specter, Coleman).

II. Nominations: Kevin J. O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; Gregory G. Katsas to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``War at any cost? The total economic costs of the war beyond the Federal budget'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008. The hearing will commence at 9:30 a.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight: Security of Our Nation's Nuclear Plants.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Weaknesses in the Visa Waiver Program: Are the Needed Safeguards in Place to Protect America?'' on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Paul Rosenzweig, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC; Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; Susan Ginsburg, Director of Programs on Mobility and Security, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC; and Jessica Vaughan, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the following legislation:

S. 177/H.R. 2085, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the McGee Creek Authority certain facilities of the McGee Creek Project, Oklahoma, and for other purposes;

S. 1473/H.R. 1855, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project;

S. 1474/H.R. 1139, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design and construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, and other uses from the Bunker Hill Groundwater Basin, Santa Ana River, California, and for other purposes;

S. 1929, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed;

S. 2370, to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;

H.R. 2381, to promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.

I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and Ohio State will be in the national championship on January 7. And we look forward to dealing with our colleagues from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there has been a lot said on the floor today about the national energy crisis that we face. We know that it jeopardizes our national security, we know that it jeopardizes our own economy and American jobs here at home, and this is an issue that the American people are very concerned about. We have got rising gasoline prices. We have got home heating oil prices and gas prices for this winter that are really going to hurt the American families' budget. So we have a crisis that deserves our response and our collective efforts. But what we have here today is a bill that was written in secret, written by a handful of people on the majority side in each Chamber that we didn't see until last night. Nobody knows what is in this bill because nobody has had time to read it.

One thing that is in here that I think is something that certainly will be useful is the CAFE agreement that Mr. Dingell and others reached that will give us more efficient cars in the future and done in a practical way to help domestic manufacturers and the consumers in America who are going to have to pay for this.

But we know what is not in it. There is nothing in here that is going to lower gasoline prices in America. There is nothing in here that is going to help American families deal with the heating costs they are going to have this winter. There is nothing here in this bill that is going to increase domestic production of energy. And at the end of the day, if we are very serious about solving the energy crisis in America, we have got to deal with conservation. We have got to deal with alternative sources of fuel. We have to deal with increased production here in the United States, and my goodness, why won't we talk about nuclear energy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States when we know that it is the cleanest source of fuel for our future? But it is not in here.

Now, I did find some other things that were in this bill. Earmarks. Oh, yeah, we have to have earmarks. If we are going to move a piece of legislation, we have to take care of a few people. So I found $161 million in here for the Plum Creek Timber Company's Montana land holdings for native fish habitat conservation. I didn't know that fish lived in trees. We have $2 billion earmark in here from our good friend from New York City to help New York develop a rail line from the JFK Airport to Lower Manhattan. That's something I am sure my constituents want to pay for.

One of the better issues in here, though, is the $3 billion slush fund, $3 billion of our money that we are going to give to cities and counties around America for green projects, except the definition is so wide that they can do almost anything, like some city can decide they are going to finance Al Gore's speaking tour to promote his book, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' or maybe Beverly Hills will replace their police cars with Lexus hybrids. Certainly it would count if you look at the bill. We could be buying some energy-efficient hybrid snowmobiles for Aspen or Snowmass or any of those places. All that would be allowed under this provision. Or we can even use some of this money to finish the rain forest that we are building in Iowa. This is not where the American people want their money to go to.

Although this is not an earmark, what I really liked in the bill was the $240 tax credit that we are going to provide every 15 months for people who regularly ride their bike to work for the purchase, repair or storage of their bicycle. Now, amongst us, I know there is one of my colleagues that would probably benefit from this. I hope he is going to recuse himself when we vote. This is not going to solve America's energy problem. I think that we ought to get serious as a country about energy independence and saving our future and the future for our kids.

But while we are here dealing with this bill that doesn't frankly do much and will not solve our problem, think about what we haven't done. You know Christmas is right around the corner for some of you that haven't realized it. The majority leader said yesterday that we would be out by next Friday. The gentleman from Maryland yesterday, the majority leader, said we would be out by December 14. Now, first, I wanted to say ``Ha-Ha-Ha,'' but then I began to realize we are close to Christmas so I thought, well, ``Ho-Ho-Ho'' might be more appropriate. Now there is not a chance that that is going to happen.

We haven't dealt with the AMT problem. We are about to put 23 million Americans under the alternative minimum tax that have never been there before. We have not done anything to fund our troops or our veterans that are about to run out of money. Men and women in the military, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, are out there fighting to protect the American people. We have not dealt with that funding. We have not dealt with 11 of the 12 appropriation bills that should have been done by October but, you know, we were going to get them done by Thanksgiving, and here it is, December 6, my wife's birthday, Ray LaHood's birthday, December 6, and we still haven't done 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. Yet none of this is finished at a time when we ought to be getting serious about getting our work done.

So I would ask my colleagues, let's get serious about energy independence. Let's get serious about what we need to do as a nation to solve the future for our kids and theirs. And until we get serious, I think we should vote ``no'' on this bill.

But I would implore my colleagues to also realize that our constituents are looking for us, our families are going to be looking for us soon, and it is time for us to wrap up our work but get our work finished, because the American people expect it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. Speaker, America must develop a 21st century energy security policy that will reduce energy costs, increase energy independence, encourage energy conservation, strengthen the economy and protect the environment, including steps to cut carbon emissions and address the impacts of climate change. I believe that policy must also include a commitment to invest in clean, renewable energy technology, the responsible exploration of domestic energy sources, an increase in fuel efficiency standards, and the research necessary to develop the fuels of the future.

Today the House considers a bill that is over 1,000 pages, with only 12 hours of notice and only 1 hour of debate. I found it interesting that while the bill was not introduced and made available to members until 8:30 last night, K Street lobbyists provided copies to congressional staff 3 hours earlier.

In the limited time we have had to read the bill, I have found some provisions that I could support. The bill has provisions to invest in research and development of a whole host of renewable resources, promote energy efficiency by the Federal Government, promote energy conservation programs and investment by the private sector in renewable energy generation. If we are ever to become energy independent, those are the kinds of investment we must make.

The bill also has provisions to establish grants to promote public transportation and expand use of alternative fuels, and extend tax credits for energy efficient projects in commercial buildings, production of renewable electricity and investments in solar energy and fuel cells. Earlier this year I voted for the Udall/Platts amendment to require electricity companies to ensure that 15 percent of their electricity is generated by renewable and alternative sources by the year 2020. Renewable energy development is vital to our national security, our economic prosperity and the health of our environment.

Another provision I support and have cosponsored separate legislation will increase automobile fuel economy standards, also called CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

But with all these positive steps promoting energy investment, why add provisions that will penalize domestic oil and gas production? America is at the mercy of countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and even China whose governments control oil resources around the world. If we are ever to wean our Nation from foreign sources of energy, we must tap our own energy sources. Congress had an opportunity through this bill to find ways to partner with America's oil and gas producers to provide incentives to encourage alternative energy use and development and to stop the rising costs of gas and oil. Instead, the legislation adds billions in increased taxes which will hurt energy consumers and threaten U.S. jobs. I don't believe any fair-minded person would say that the way to lower prices at the pump is by raising taxes on the companies that find, refine and transport gasoline.

That is no way to promote energy independence. The tax provisions not only increase taxes for domestic drilling, but also include a massive tax increase on U.S. companies producing energy abroad. This will have the effect of placing U.S.-based companies at a disadvantage by reducing their ability to compete for investments in foreign energy projects. This is unacceptable when China, India and Russia are working night and day to corner the market on many of the world's energy resources. In fact, Cuba has sold leases for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to China, India, Canada and Spain.

Additionally, I was shocked to see that provisions to promote telework in the Federal Government were removed from the final bill. According to Environmental Defense, 6 billion gallons of oil can be saved if commuters telework just 1 day each week. Most importantly, these telework provisions did not cost a penny.

Just a few weeks ago the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual traffic congestion study which found that congestion creates a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy due to 4.2 million lost hours of productivity and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted gas. That's not even considering the air pollutants caused by idling vehicles around the nation. Why did we not consider savings from the telecommuting provisions included in the energy bill passed earlier this year as an offset instead of new taxes on the backs of the American people?

I also have learned that this massive bill includes a $2 billion earmark for the City of New York. I am sure there are other special interest projects that have been creatively air dropped into the 1,061 pages of this bill. With so little time to cull through those pages, though, no one but the sponsors will know before we vote. No wonder the American people have such low regard for Congress.

To truly create an effective energy policy, we must have an open and transparent process for all members and in fact all Americans working together. We cannot achieve energy security by increasing taxes on oil and gas producers, which will cripple our economy and impact the pocketbook of every single American. We cannot create energy policy through wheeling and dealing or thousand page bills released just hours before a vote.

Finding bipartisan consensus in developing energy policy is critical for our Nation's future economy, prosperity and security. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate must work together so that America can truly start on the path to energy independence that delivers energy security and lower costs for American consumers in a way that also promotes environmental stewardship.

We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This agreement with the Senate builds on the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act passed this summer. The ambitious legislation before us today, which includes wide-ranging solutions from 10 House committees, invests in the future of America and puts our nation on a path towards energy independence. It will strengthen national security, lower energy costs, grow our economy, create new jobs, and begin to reduce the threat of global warming.

With this legislation, Congress is taking groundbreaking steps to address the crisis of climate change. The bill will increase the efficiency of our vehicles. It makes an historic commitment to American-grown biofuels and requires that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources. The legislation strengthens energy efficiency for a wide range of products, appliances, lighting and buildings. It also repeals tax breaks for big oil companies, and invests that money in clean renewable energy and new American technologies. Not only will these measures reduce our dependence on foreign oil and grow our economy, they will also save consumers billions of dollars.

The Energy Independence and Security Act includes several provisions that will strengthen our national security by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. I am particularly pleased about the compromise that was reached on fuel economy standards, raising standards for new cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill ensures that this fuel economy standard will be reached, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring that we keep American manufacturing jobs and continue domestic production of smaller vehicles. I want to applaud Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Dingell for reaching an agreement that is supported by both environmentalists and the automobile industry.

The legislation before us today also reduces our dependence on foreign oil. The initiative includes a historic commitment to American biofuels that will fuel our cars and trucks. It includes critical environmental safeguards to ensure that the growth of homegrown fuels helps to reduce carbon emissions and does not degrade water or air quality or harm our lands and public health. The plan establishes a plug-in hybrid/electric vehicle tax credit for individuals and encourages the domestic development and production of advanced technology vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. It also includes tax provisions totaling approximately $21 billion--which includes the repeal of about $13 billion in tax subsidies for Big Oil.

The Energy Independence and Security Act will help lower energy costs by promoting cleaner energy, greater efficiency, and smarter technology. It requires utility companies to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources--such as wind power, biomass, wave, tidal, geothermal and solar--by 2020. The bill includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars on energy costs by requiring more energy efficient appliances, such as dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators and freezers. It requires improved commercial and federal building energy efficiency and assists consumers in improving the efficiency of their homes. The bill also strengthens and extends existing renewable energy tax credits, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas and trash combustion, while creating new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy, as well as supporting research on solar, geothermal, and marine renewable energy.

The energy bill will help create new American jobs and reduce the threat of global warming. The landmark fuel efficiency standard, renewable electricity standard and energy efficiency provisions will not only save consumers and businesses money, but will also significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, this package creates an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train a quality workforce for ``green'' collar jobs. These investments in renewable energy could create 3 million green jobs over 10 years. The bill helps small businesses lead the way in renewable energy by increasing loan limits for purchasing energy efficient technologies. It rewards entrepreneurship in the energy sector by increasing investment in small firms developing renewable energy solutions. This initiative also takes aggressive steps on carbon capture and sequestration to come up with a cleaner way to use coal.

For too long, our country has lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in recognizing and taking action to address the climate change crisis. Global warming endangers all of us, but threatens to have the most devastating impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our nation is the richest in the world and one of the largest contributors to global warming, yet, until today, it has not made any substantial efforts towards addressing the problem. I am proud to join with my colleagues as we at long last put America on the path to becoming part of the solution.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if the request is denied.

Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of employee legal fees, invocation

of the attorney-client privilege, or agreement to a joint defense agreement.

The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: ``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''

There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through the window what isn't allowed through the door.

As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.

In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.

As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.

This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to also briefly discuss various provisions in order to more fully explain the statutory language and to provide context for what we are accomplishing with this historic energy bill.

Section 3 of the bill states: ``Except to the extent expressly provided in this Act, or in an amendment made by this Act, nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this act supersedes, limits the authority or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.''

The laws and regulations referred to in section 3 include, but are not limited to, the Clean Air Act and any regulations promulgated under Clean Air Act authority. It is the intent of Congress to fully preserve existing federal and state authority under the Clean Air Act.

In addition, Congress does not intend, by including provisions in Title I of the bill that reform and alter the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles, work trucks, and medium and heavy duty trucks, to in any way supersede or limit the authority and/or responsibility conferred by sections 177, 202, and 209 of the Clean Air Act. (For section 202 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority and responsibility affirmed by the Supreme Court's April 2, 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (No. 05-1120), and, for sections 177 and 209 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority affirmed by the September 12, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in Green Mountain Chrysler Dodge Jeep et al. v. Crombie et al. (No. 2:05-cv-302).

Title 1 of the bill addresses CAFE Standards. Section 102(a) would require that the fleet of new passenger and non-passenger vehicles made for sale in model year 2020 reach a fleet-wide fuel economy average of at least 35 miles per gallon, regardless of shifts in the market or any other consideration. While fuel economy standards for each of model years 2011-2019 are expected to be the maximum feasible standard, this section does not allow the Department of Transportation (DOT) to set a fleet-wide average of lower than 35 miles per gallon for model year 2020 under any circumstances. In addition, if the maximum feasible level for model year 2020 is higher than 35 miles per gallon due to technological progress and/or other factors, Congress intends to require DOT to set standards at the maximum feasible level.

It is also the intent of this section to require DOT to set interim standards between 2011 and 2019 to make rapid and consistent annual progress towards achieving the 35 mpg minimum by 2020. In asking for ``ratable'' progress, the intent of Congress is to seek relatively consistent proportional increases in fuel economy standards each year, such that no single year through 2020 should experience a significantly higher increase than the previous year.

Section 104 addresses credit trading among and within automakers' vehicle fleets, and is intended to increase flexibility for automakers, but it is the intent of Congress that any trading not in any way reduce the oil savings achieved by the standards set for any year under this title.

Section 105 is intended to provide added information for consumers, but is not intended to in any way interfere with or diminish EPA labeling authority. Congress intends that DOT work closely with EPA in fulfilling the requirements of this section.

Section 106 is intended to clarify that Title I does not impact fuel economy standards or the standard-setting process for vehicles manufactured before model year 2011. This section is not intended to codify, or otherwise support or reject, any standards applying before model year 2011, and is not intended to reverse, supersede, overrule, or in any way limit the November 15, 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (No. 06-71891)

Section 109 makes modifications to the cap on the credits allowed to manufacturers making dual-fuel vehicles to ensure that the dual-fuel vehicle credit program is phased out and is fully and permanently eliminated by 2020 and thereafter.

I urge the Secretary to pay careful heed to the intent and spirit of these provisions in carrying out the provisions of this Title, so that we achieve the Bill's goals of increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, SUVs, and other vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, the people of rural Missouri and those who live throughout the United States are eager for Congress to enact energy policies that help alleviate record high oil prices, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, promote homegrown energy sources, and preserve the environment for future generations. The comprehensive energy bill we are considering today, the Energy Independence and Security Act, would address the peoples' concerns in these areas. After careful consideration, I have concluded the measure is good for rural Missouri and for the security of our Nation. I will lend my support to it.

Our Nation cannot afford to ignore the impact high energy prices are having on individuals, on families, and on the economy at large. Oil and fuel prices have been at record levels for weeks. Rural Missouri families and farmers, who rely heavily on transportation to go about their daily lives, are particularly hard hit by high fuel costs. They have been allocating larger portions of their income to fill their gas tanks and to heat their homes. Meanwhile, America's top five oil companies have been collecting record profits and refusing to invest those profits in new oil refining capabilities.

Enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act would be welcome news to Missouri motorists. For the first time since 1975, this legislation would raise fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks sold in our country. Further, it would ensure that automakers continue producing trucks driven by many rural Americans by adjusting the fuel efficiency requirements for these particular vehicles.

Improved fuel efficiency is long overdue. Over time, this added efficiency would reduce by half the amount of oil America imports from foreign sources, reduce hazardous vehicle emissions, preserve our environment, and eventually yield fewer trips to the gas station for hard working Americans. I am pleased that the automobile industry and conservationists support this fuel efficiency standard.

Important to Missouri farmers is the robust renewable fuels standard included in the Energy Independence and Security Act. In the Show-Me State and throughout America's heartland, ethanol and biodiesel production facilities dot the countryside. They have fostered economic development in areas of the country that have struggled to produce jobs. Many of these facilities are owned by farmers who have committed their financial resources and ingenuity toward advancing America's energy independence, improving farm incomes, and boosting the economic well-being of small towns.

The 2005 Energy Bill included a strong renewable fuels standard for ethanol made from corn. Since passage of that legislation, ethanol production has dramatically increased, corn yields have set records, and ethanol's farmer-investors have reaped economic gains. Because of the overwhelming success of ethanol and the demand for corn, the price per bushel of corn has risen. Combined with widespread drought that has impacted much of the Midwest and Great Plains States over the past several years, killing or damaging grazing pastureland, high corn prices have raised concerns about ethanol with some livestock producers.

This year's energy bill would build upon the successful renewable fuels standard established in 2005 by allowing for a strong corn ethanol mandate, while also phasing in ethanol made from sources other than corn to help assuage the concerns of some U.S. livestock producers. The bill also would create a minimum use requirement for biodiesel made from soybeans and other sources.

While I will support the Energy Independence and Security Act, the bill is not perfect. I am concerned that investor-owned utility firms in Missouri and elsewhere may not be able to sufficiently produce electricity from renewable sources within the time mandated by the legislation. I am hopeful that the Energy and Commerce Committee will sit down with investor-owned utility firms to iron out any glitches that may arise in this particular area.

Taken as a whole, the Energy Independence and Security Act would be good for rural Missouri and for our country. I will vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.