National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Underground Railroad Network Reauthorization Act of 2007. The original act, signed into law in 1998, has increased public awareness of the Underground Railroad, a cornerstone in African-American heritage and history, with sites and programs in 28 States and the

District of Columbia. This is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation and dissemination of underground railroad history. I am pleased that we are joined in this effort by Senators Alexander, Carper, Cardin, Cochran, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin and Obama.

Throughout this Nation there are sites in the underground railroad network that, while still standing, have suffered structural damage. There are also many sites that no longer house a physical structure, but still are important to recognize. A good example is the Thomas Garrett House, located in Wilmington in my home State of Delaware. The Garrett House was the last station on the Underground Railroad before the slaves reached freedom in Pennsylvania. It has been estimated that Garrett, a well known Quaker, helped more than 2,000 runaway slaves escape from the Southern States. The legislation being introduced today will not only help pay to repair damaged structures, but also to educate the general public about those sites that are no longer in existence, like the Thomas Garrett House.

The underground railroad network is a special part of American history that we cannot afford to let slip away. This legislation will preserve these invaluable memorials and educational resources by raising the authorization level from $500,000 to $2.5 million. We must move now to ensure that the brave acts of these individuals are preserved for future generations to observe and honor.

A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Representatives, H.R. 1239, by Representative Alcee L. Hastings and my friend and colleague from Delaware, Representative Mike Castle. I hope both Chambers move quickly to preserve this precious history.

It is my honor to ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join me today in supporting this bill so that this part of our Nation's past will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar.

The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy.

Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities.

And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug.

More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity.

Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong.

We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage.

Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair.

There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue.

As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.''

A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.''

This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform.

The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment.

My bill implements all of these recommendations.

Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.

It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs.

My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources.

Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Ending racial profiling in America has been a priority for me for many years. I worked with the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, back in 1999 on a bill to collect statistics on traffic stops, which is where the problem of racial profiling was first revealed. Many studies from around the country now confirm that racial profiling is indeed a real problem that wastes police resources and diminishes trust between police departments and the communities they protect.

In 2001, in his first State of the Union address, President Bush told the American people that ``racial profiling is wrong and we will end it in America.'' He asked the Attorney General to implement a policy to end racial profiling. The Department of Justice released a Fact Sheet and Policy Guidance addressing racial profiling in 2003, stating that racial profiling is wrong and ineffective and perpetuates negative racial stereotypes in our country. Though these guidelines are helpful, they do not end racial profiling and they do not have the force of law. Unfortunately, more than 6 years after the President's promise to the country, we have not yet ended racial profiling in this country.

The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 will do what the President promised; it will help America achieve the goal of bringing an end to racial profiling. This bill bans racial profiling and requires Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to take steps to end this practice.

Racial profiling is the practice by which some law enforcement agents treat differently African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and others simply because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, or perceived religion. I have the utmost respect for law enforcement agents, and I believe that most of them do not engage in this practice. Nonetheless, reports in States from New Jersey to Florida, and Maryland to Texas all show that African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other minority groups were stopped by some police far more often than their share of the population and the crime rates for those racial categories.

Passing this bill is even more urgent after 9/11, as we have seen racial profiling used against Arab and Muslim Americans or Americans perceived to be Arab or Muslim. The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and I share the determination of many Americans that finding those responsible and preventing future attacks should be this Nation's top priority. This is a challenge that our country can and must meet. But to do that we need improved intelligence and law enforcement. Making assumptions based on racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes will not protect our nation from crime or from future terrorist attacks.

A report released in May by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, covering 2005 data, found that while an African American person is now almost equally likely to be stopped as a white person, he or she is more than two and a half times more likely to be searched, more than twice as likely to be arrested, and more than three and a half times more likely to experience the use of force. Yet, according to studies from multiple police jurisdictions, these encounters with law enforcement are less likely to reveal criminal activity on the part of African Americans than whites. The flagrancy of this flawed and irrational practice has led Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to observe, ``If I'm dressed in a knit cap and hooded jacket, I'm probable cause.''

The disparities outlined above, which also apply to other ethnic groups, have led the International Association of Chiefs of Police to call for an end to racial profiling. In addition, police departments around the country have independently developed programs and policies to prevent racial profiling and comply with the Department of Justice's policy guidance. In my own State of Wisconsin, law enforcement officials have taken steps to train police officers, improve academy training, establish model policies prohibiting racial profiling, and improve relations with our State's diverse communities. I applaud the efforts of Wisconsin law enforcement. This is excellent progress and shows widespread recognition that racial profiling harms our society. But like the DOJ policy guidance, local programs don't have the force of law behind them. The Federal government must step up, as President Bush promised. It must play a vital role in protecting civil rights and acting as a model for State and local law enforcement.

Now, perhaps more than ever before, our Nation cannot afford to waste precious law enforcement resources or alienate Americans by tolerating discriminatory practices. The mass detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern and Arab men on minor violations after 9/11, for example, resulted in not a single terrorism charge. These detentions did, however, shatter the lives of many people with no connection to terrorism whatsoever through lengthy disappearances, detentions, and deportations.

Similarly, when the Federal Government required the registration of individuals from Arab or Muslim countries in 2002, between 500 and 1,000 registrants who voluntarily complied were detained in the Los Angeles/Orange County area alone. Such heavy-handed tactics do not help us in fighting terrorism--they shut off dialogue and make good people unwilling to risk interaction with their Government. Treating sympathetic communities as suspicious ones is counterproductive, and it is wrong.

It is past time for Congress and the President to enact comprehensive Federal legislation that will end racial profiling once and for all. In clear language, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 bans racial profiling. It defines racial profiling in terms that are consistent with the Department of Justice's Policy Guidance. But this bill does more than prohibit and define racial profiling--it gives law enforcement agencies and officers the tools necessary to end the harmful practice. For that reason, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is a pro-law enforcement bill.

This bill would allow the Justice Department or individuals to enforce the prohibition by filing a suit for injunctive relief. The bill would also require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies prohibiting racial profiling, implement effective complaint procedures or create independent auditor programs, implement disciplinary procedures for officers who engage in the practice, and collect data on routine and spontaneous investigatory activities. In addition, it requires the Attorney General to report to Congress so Congress and the American people can monitor whether the steps outlined in the bill to prevent and end racial profiling have been effective.

This bill also authorizes the Attorney General to provide incentive grants to help law enforcement comply with the ban on racial profiling, including funds to conduct training of police officers or purchase in- car video cameras.

Like the bill I introduced in 2005, this year's bill contains a significant improvement over previous versions. In some early proposals, DOJ grants for State and local law enforcement agencies were tied to the agency having some kind of procedure for handling complaints of racial profiling. At the suggestion of experts in the field, the bill now requires law enforcement agencies to adopt either an administrative complaint procedure or an independent auditor program to be eligible for DOJ grants. The Attorney General must promulgate regulations that set out the types of procedures and audit programs that will be sufficient. We believe that the independent auditor option will be preferable for many local law enforcement agencies, and such programs have proven to be an effective way to discourage racial profiling. Also, the Attorney General is required to conduct a 2-year demonstration project to help law enforcement agencies with data collection.

Let me emphasize that local, State, and Federal law enforcement agents play a vital role in protecting the public from crime and protecting the Nation from terrorism. The vast majority of law enforcement agents nationwide discharge their duties professionally and without bias and we are all indebted to them for their courage and dedication. This bill should not be misinterpreted as a criticism of those who

put their lives on the line for the rest of us each and every day. Rather, it is a statement that the use of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in deciding which persons should be subject to traffic stops, stops and frisks, questioning, searches, and seizures is wrong and ineffective, except where there is specific information linking persons of a particular race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin to a crime.

The provisions in this bill will help restore the trust and confidence of the communities that our law enforcement have pledged to serve and protect. That confidence is crucial to our success in stopping crime and in stopping terrorism. The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007 is good for law enforcement and good for America.

I urge the President to make good on his pledge to end racial profiling, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the End Racial Profiling Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith to introduce the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act. Millions across the world recently observed the 20th World AIDS Day on December 1, a day of mourning, solidarity, and hope: mourning for the more than 25 million killed already in the AIDS pandemic; solidarity with the 33.2 million living with HIV today; and hope that this plague will be conquered in our time--with an achievable goal of realizing the birth of an HIV-free generation.

In the U.S., we have reached a point where a child living with HIV/ AIDS no longer faces certain death. Thanks to anti-retroviral, ARV, therapy, many children born infected with HIV/AIDS now have the opportunity to grow up healthy. However, long-term survival is a dream that eludes most of the 2.5 million HIV-infected children around the world.

Of the more than 2.5 million new HIV infections in 2007, more than 420,000 were in children. But while children account for almost 16 percent of all new HIV infections, they make up only 9 percent of those on treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR. Without proper care and treatment, half of these newly-infected children will die before their second birthday and 75 percent will die before their fifth.

Every day, approximately 1,100 children across the globe are infected with HIV, the vast majority through mother-to-child transmission during pregnancy, labor or delivery or soon after through breastfeeding. Approximately 90 percent of these infections occur in Africa. With no medical intervention, HIV-positive mothers have a 25 to 30 percent chance of passing the virus to their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. Yet, a single dose of an ARV drug given once to the mother at the onset of labor and once to the baby during the first three days of life reduces transmission of HIV by approximately 50 percent. Providing the full range of interventions, as is the standard of care in the U.S., can further reduce the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV to as little as 2 percent. However, according to UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, less than 10 percent of pregnant women with HIV in resource-poor countries have access to prevention of mother-to-child transmission, PMTCT, services.

Significant barriers to PMTCT and the equal care and treatment of HIV-infected children continue to exist. Among the barriers to PMTCT services is their poor integration into the healthcare system, the lack of infrastructure and poor quality health facilities, low utilization of pre-natal services, and a high percentage of unattended at-home births. Because children are not just small adults, providing care and treatment presents special challenges such as limited access to reliable HIV testing for the youngest children, a shortage of providers trained in delivering pediatric care, weak linkages between services to prevent mother-to-child transmission and care and treatment programs, and the need for additional, low-cost formulations of HIV/AIDS medications.

The unfortunate reality of current HIV/AIDS treatment programs is that they will become unsustainable in the long-term unless the number of new HIV infections is reduced globally. The importance of PMTCT for the prevention of the spread of HIV cannot be overstated. According to UNAIDS, prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission requires a comprehensive package of services that includes preventing primary HIV infection in

women, preventing unintended pregnancies in women with HIV infection, preventing transmission from HIV-infected pregnant women to their infants, and providing care, treatment and support for HIV-infected women and their families. A 2003 study found that by adding family planning through PMTCT services in 14 high prevalence countries, more than 150,000 unintended pregnancies were averted, child infections averted nearly doubled, and child deaths averted nearly quadrupled. Studies also show that current levels of contraceptive use in sub- Saharan Africa are already preventing an estimated 22 percent of HIV- positive births.

For many pregnant mothers, PMTCT services may be the only entry point for health care services for themselves and their families. That is why it is essential that PMTCT services be integrated with prevention, care and treatment services. With adequate integration of those services and strategies to ensure successful follow-up and continuity of care, we can significantly improve the outcomes for HIV-affected women and families.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Global Pediatric HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment Act, will help prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections in the years to come and improve the treatment of children living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. The legislation will bring our international HIV/AIDS efforts in line with the infection rate of children, by establishing a target that, within 5 years, 15 percent of those receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR should be children.

The legislation establishes another 5-year target to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. In those countries most affected, 80 percent of pregnant women should receive HIV counseling and testing, with all those testing positive receiving anti-retroviral medication for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

Under the legislation, the U.S. comprehensive, 5-year global strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS must also integrate prevention, care and treatment with prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs, as soon as feasible and consistent with the national government policies of the foreign countries of PEPFAR countries in order to improve outcomes for HIV-affected women and families and to promote follow-up and continuity of care.

Lastly, the legislation authorizes the creation of a Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Expert Panel to provide an objective review of PMTCT activities funded under PEPFAR and to provide recommendations to the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator for scale- up of mother-to-child transmission prevention services under PEPFAR in order to reach the newly-established target for PTMCT. The Panel consists of no more than 15 members, to be appointed by the coordinator, and will terminate once it submits its report containing recommendations, findings and conclusions to the coordinator, Congress, and is made public.

To be clear, this legislation does not establish any earmarks within PEPFAR. It does not dictate how much money should be spent on specific activities. I, for one, oppose the current policy under PEPFAR which dictates that one-third of all prevention funds be reserved for abstinence-until-marriage programs, to the detriment of other more effective programs that are producing better results. Certainly abstinence programs have a role to play in PEPFAR, but they should not draw funding away from other, more effective programs. Therefore, it is my hope that Congress does away with that earmark when it reauthorizes PEPFAR, and instead allows for flexibility within PEPFAR.

Instead, the legislation sets 5-year targets that are focused on those receiving services without specifying how much money any given country should spend on specific services to reach the target. I believe this approach is consistent with the April 2007 Institute of Medicine report on PEPFAR which called on Congress to replace arbitrary budget directives with specific targets accounting for the unique epidemics in specific countries, as well as existing available resources. Removal of budget restrictions and the implementation of program targets, such as those authorized under this legislation, would allow local providers to invest in the services and activities most needed to achieve national goals for prevention, care, and treatment.

The struggle against this disease continues on all fronts. Just recently, a report showed that right here in Washington, D.C., the city is in the grip of a ``modern epidemic,'' with one in 20 residents HIV- infected, a rate ten times the national average. In my own State of Connecticut, the need for care and treatment services is at an all time high, while the funding to meet this increased need has declined.

As we take stock of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and our progress against it, we must bear in mind the special vulnerability of the world's children. With this legislation we can increase the number of children receiving care and treatment under PEPFAR and expand access to PMTCT services in order to prevent thousands of new pediatric HIV infections.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry. According to 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, statistics, the market value of all agriculture production in PA was approximately $7,026,739,000. Further, dairy is the number one sector of our agriculture industry. In 2005, Pennsylvania dairy farmers produced 10.5 billion pounds of milk from 558,000 cows on approximately 9,000 dairy farms. In 2004, milk production in PA contributed about $1,770,912,000 to the economy.

I have consistently fought for Pennsylvania's dairy producers since taking office in 1981. Last year, I fought to ensure the viability of the dairy industry by ensuring that the Senate Budget Committee opposed the administration's fiscal year 2007 proposals that would have been detrimental to our Nation's dairy farmers. I, along with 16 other Senators, wrote a letter on March 8, 2006, to the Senate Budget Committee urging rejection of the proposed budget cuts and tax increases on America's dairy farmers that included: 1. reducing the value of the price support program; 2. cutting Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, payments by 5 percent; and 3. taxing every dairy farmer in America 3 cents per hundredweight, cwt., on all production. We were successful in this fight to protect Pennsylvania's, and the Nation's, dairy producers.

Also, I, along with five other Senators, requested that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, review the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, cash cheese market because the price of cheese is strongly correlated to the price of milk. The GAO is expected to have a final report in the near future. This report will help us set legislative priorities by giving us a better understanding of the CME cheese market and its relation to the price of milk.

Even though milk production in Pennsylvania had a market value of $1,770,912,000 in 2004, dairy farmers across PA and the Nation experienced decreased prices of milk from November of 2005 until early this year. Our dairy producers should not be receiving decreased milk prices, especially with the increased costs of production, such as fuel, feed, and fertilizer.

These unpredictable fluctuations in the price of milk paid to our dairy farmers place an undue financial burden on our producers, which in turn negatively impact our rural communities. As a result, I worked hard with Senators Santorum, Chambliss, Kohl, and Leahy to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, program until September of 2007. The MILC program was created as part of the 2002 farm bill to provide supplemental payments to dairy farmers when the market price falls below a statutory trigger. This program has provided timely and crucial payments to producers, particularly when prices were low in 2002, 2003, and 2006. Although milk prices are expected to be above the statutory trigger price of $16.94 through 2007, we need to ensure a more stable milk pricing system.

The 2007 farm bill creates an opportunity to address the current volatile milk pricing system. While many legislative measures have been proposed, it is essential that any program address costs of production, ensure market and price transparency, and provide a safety-net for our producers. Additionally, we need to provide dairy producers with tools to help them should milk prices fall below sustainable levels, such as a voluntary revenue insurance program.

I, along with Senator Bob Casey, have worked with our constituents to propose two dairy legislative proposals to ensure that we continue to discuss America's milk pricing system and the need for change in the 2007 farm bill. I have met with dairy producers from across the Commonwealth and there is a broad consensus that the unpredictable milk pricing system needs to be addressed. The hard part is coming to a consensus on how to reform the system. Although these two legislative proposals may not be perfect, they provide ideas on assuring an equitable milk price for our dairy producers.

The first bill that we are introducing is the Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the number of classes of milk from four to two with the intent of simplifying the pricing of milk. The bill would require the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the price of all milk used for manufacturing purposes, which will be classified as Class II milk, by using the national average cost of production. This price would then be the basis formula for calculating the price of Class I milk, which is fluid milk. Although costs of production can vary drastically farm by farm, this legislation would ensure that dairy farmers receive a fair price for their milk based on a national average cost of production figure.

Costs of production for dairy farmers all across America have increased, not

just in one region. Fuel, feed, and fertilizer costs have more than doubled. Only recently has the price of milk paid to farmers reached higher than the MILC program trigger price of $16.94 per cwt. With the price of milk above this target price, no payments to farmers will be made, even though input costs have more than doubled. Addressing costs of production is necessary to ensure that our family dairy farmers survive.

The second bill that we have introduced aims to promote growth and opportunity for the dairy industry. This bill would change the current MILC program to a Milk Target Price Program and would link payments to dairy farmers on Class III milk. The program would pay farmers when the price of Class III falls below $12.00 per hundredweight. This trigger price would be adjusted by a feed adjustment factor to reflect the feed cost of producing 100 pounds of milk. The USDA would determine this factor based on a feed price index using a baseline period of calendar years 2001 through 2005.

Further, the second bill would require the mandatory reporting of dairy commodities by requiring that dairy prices be reported on a daily and weekly basis. The current system is not mandatory and it is estimated that dairy farmers lost $6.4 million due to a Federal reporting error by the USDA over the past nine months. Along with 10 other Senators, I sent a letter to USDA Secretary Mike Johanns on May 9, 2007, requesting an explanation on how this misreporting occurred. This bill aims to close any loops in current law and assure proper auditing, data verification, and enforcement of reporting in order to ensure a transparent dairy market.

Finally, the second bill would provide authorization for a Federal dairy education loan forgiveness program. This would allow students at higher education institutions across America who focus on agriculture for a 2- or 4-year degree and become a full-time owner of a farm to become eligible to have their Federal student loans forgiven. This is aimed to ensure that there is a younger generation of farmers to work the lands across the fields in America.

Both of these bills aim to help our family dairy farms who deserve a fair price for their milk. I am committed to Pennsylvania's dairy farmers and will continue to work with my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Casey, and all my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure our dairy farmers are not left behind. As more ideas and solutions are proposed, I will consider each and every one. Debate is important to finding a solution to any problem.

Farmers and rural America are the backbone of our great country. Every day, they work the fields, milk the cows, herd the cattle, and pick the produce. I myself grew up in rural Kansas and at the age of 14, I worked for Clyde Mills, father of my close friend and high school classmate Steve, driving a tractor in the wheat fields, providing lessons on the difficulties of working on a farm.

Agriculture is crucial to Pennsylvania and to the entire nation. We need to ensure that the next farm bill provides all our fanners with the assistance they need to overcome hardships, as well as providing our rural communities the financial and technical assistance they need to assure a vibrant and stable rural economy. Even though I voted against final passage of the 2002 farm bill because it disproportionately provided more Federal funds to other states and regions in the U.S., I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Agriculture and my colleagues in the full Senate to ensure farmers across America are equitably treated when it comes to Federal agricultural programs and assistance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Admiral Gary Roughead, USN for reappointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations; General William E. Ward, USA for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Africa command; General Kevin P. Chilton, USAF for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United States Strategic Command; and Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC to be General and to be Commander, United States Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will focus on modernization and efforts to address the needs of the air traffic system and to improve the movement of aircraft and passengers. Subcommittee members will be provided the opportunity to review problems encountered by travelers during the summer 2007 travel season and to consider steps that can be taken to improve the air traffic system.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

During the Executive Session, Committee members will markup the following agenda items: S. 1578, Ballast Water Management Act of 2007; S. 1889, Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2007; S. 1453, Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) Extension Act of 2007; S. 1965, Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act; S.J. Res. 17, a joint resolution directing the United States to initiate international discussions and take necessary steps with other Nations to negotiate an agreement for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean; S. Con. Res. 39, a concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a world day of remembrance for road crash victims; Nominations for Promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 878, PN 946, PN 947, and

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on hard rock mining on Federal lands.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on the ``Border Insecurity, Take Three: Open and Unmonitored''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women.

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 a markup on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Agenda:

I. Bills: S. 1267, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, (Lugar, Dodd, Graham), S. 2035, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, (Specter, Schumer).

S.J. Res. 13, Joint resolution granting consent to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding, (Leahy, Snowe, Kennedy, Whitehouse), S. 980, Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007, (Feinstein, Sessions, Biden).

II. Resolutions: S. Con. Res. 45, commending the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation for its work in aiding children and families affected by child abuse, and designating November 2007 as National Courage Month, (Cardin, Cornyn).

S. Res. 258, recognizing the historical and educational significance of the Atlantic Freedom Tour of the Freedom Schooner Amistad, and expressing the sense of the Senate that preserving the legacy of the Amistad story is important in promoting multicultural dialogue, education, and cooperation, (Dodd).

III. Nominations: James Russell Dedrick to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, in order to conduct a hearing on the Nomination of Paul J. Hutter to be General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, be authorized conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of the Google- DoubleClick Merger and the Online Advertising Industry: What are the Risks for Competition and Privacy?'' on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 3:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cost Effective Airlift in the 21st Century''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 128, to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to designate a new management entity, make certain technical and conforming amendments, enhance private property protections, and for other purposes; S. 148, to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Park in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 189, to decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan; S. 697, to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 867, to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1039, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey; S. 1341, to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 1476, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc County, California, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System; S. 1709 and H.R. 1239, to amend the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 to provide additional staff and oversight of funds to carry out the Act, and for other purposes; S. 1808, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Denali National Park in the State of Alaska; S. 1969, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the

U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.