A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between two physicians during the period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces.

Mr. President, once again I seek recognition to introduce legislation that will give the public greater access to our Supreme Court. This bill requires the high Court to permit television coverage of its open sessions unless it decides by a majority vote of the Justices that allowing such coverage in a particular case would violate the due process rights of one or more of the parties involved in the matter.

The purpose of this legislation is to open the Supreme Court doors so that more Americans can see the process by which the Court reaches critical decisions of law that affect this country and everyday Americans. The Supreme Court makes pronouncements on Constitutional and Federal law that have a direct impact on the rights of Americans. Those rights would be substantially enhanced by televising the oral arguments of the Court so that the public can see and hear the issues presented to the Court. With this information, the public would have insight into key issues and be better equipped to understand the impact of and reasons for the Court's decisions.

In a very fundamental sense, televising the Supreme Court has been implicitly recognized--perhaps even sanctioned--in a 1980 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States entitled Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia. In this case, the Court noted that a public trial belongs not only to the accused but to the public and the press as well and recognized that people now acquire information on court procedures chiefly through the print and electronic media.

That decision, in referencing the electronic media, appears to anticipate televising court proceedings, although I do not mean to suggest that the Supreme Court is in agreement with this legislation. I should note that the Court could, on its own initiative, televise its proceedings but has chosen not to do so, which presents, in my view, the necessity for legislating on this subject.

When I argued the case of the Navy Yard, Dalton v. Specter, back in 1994, the Court proceedings were illustrated by an artist's drawings-- some of which now hang in my office. Today, the public gets a substantial portion, if not most, of its information from television and the internet. While many court proceedings are broadcast routinely on television, the public has little access to the most important and highest court in this country. Although the internet has made receipt of the Court's transcripts, and even more recently, audio recordings, more widely accessible, the public is still deprived of the real time transmission of audio and video feeds from the Court. I believe it is vital for the public to see, as well as to hear, the arguments made before the Court and the interplay among the justices. I think the American people will gain a greater respect for the way in which our High Court functions if they are able to see oral arguments.

Justice Felix Frankfurter perhaps anticipated the day when Supreme Court arguments would be televised when he said that he longed for a day when: ``The news media would cover the Supreme Court as thoroughly as it did the World Series, since the public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the public's perception of it, and that perception necessarily hinges on the media's portrayal of the legal system.''

When I spoke in favor of this legislation in September of 2000, I said, ``I do not expect a rush to judgment on this very complex proposition, but I do believe the day will come when the Supreme Court of the United States will be televised. That day will come, and it will be decisively in the public interest so the public will know the magnitude of what the Court is deciding and its role in our democratic process.'' I reiterated those sentiments in September of 2005 when I re-introduced an identical bill. Today, I believe the time has come and that this legislation is crucial to the public's awareness of Supreme Court proceedings and their impact on the daily lives of all Americans.

I pause to note that it was not until 1955 that the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren, first began permitting audio recordings of oral arguments. Between 1955 and 1993, there were apparently over 5,000 recorded arguments before the Supreme Court. That roughly translates to an average of about 132 arguments annually. But audio recordings are simply ill suited to capture the nuance of oral arguments and the sustained attention of the American citizenry. Nor is it any response that people who wish to see open sessions of the Supreme Court should come to the Capital and attend oral arguments. For, according to one source: ``Several million people each year visit Washington, D.C., and many thousands tour the White House and the Capitol. But few have the chance to sit in the Supreme Court chamber and witness an entire oral argument. Most tourists are given just three minutes before they are shuttled out and a new group shuttled in. In cases that attract headlines, seats for the public are scarce and waiting lines are long. And the Court sits in open session less than two hundred hours each year. Television cameras and radio microphones are still banned from the chamber, and only a few hundred people at most can actually witness oral arguments. Protected by a marble wall from public access, the Supreme Court has long been the least understood of the three branches of our Federal Government.''

In light of the increasing public desire for information, it seems untenable to continue excluding cameras from the courtroom of the Nation's highest court. As one legal commentator observes: ``An effective and legitimate way to satisfy America's curiosity about the Supreme Court's holdings, Justices, and modus operandi is to permit broadcast coverage of oral arguments and decision announcements from the courtroom itself.''

Televised court proceedings better enable the public to understand the role of the Supreme Court and its impact on the key decisions of the day. Not only has the Supreme Court invalidated Congressional decisions where there was, in the views of many, simply a difference of opinion as to what is preferable public policy, but the Court determines novel issues such as whether AIDS is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether Congress can ban obscenity from the Internet, and whether states can impose term limits upon members of Congress. The current Court, like its predecessors, hands down decisions which vitally affect the lives and liberties of all Americans. Since the Court's historic 1803 decision, Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the final authority on issues of enormous importance from birth to death. In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court affirmed a Constitutional right to abortion in this country and struck down state statutes banning or severely restricting abortion during the first two trimesters on the grounds that they violated a right to privacy inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997, the court refused to create a similar right to assisted suicide. Here the Court held that the Due Process Clause does not recognize a liberty interest that includes a right to commit suicide with another's assistance.

In the Seventies, the Court first struck down then upheld state statutes imposing the death penalty for certain crimes. In Furman v. Georgia, 1972, the Court struck down Georgia's death penalty statute under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and stated that no death penalty law could pass constitutional muster unless it took aggravating and mitigating circumstances into account. This decision led Georgia and many States to amend their death penalty statutes and, four years later, in Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's amended death penalty statute.

Over the years, the Court has also played a major role in issues of war and peace. In its opinion in Scott v. Sanford, 1857--better known as the Dredd Scott decision--the Supreme Court held that Dredd Scott, a slave who had been taken into ``free'' territory by his owner, was nevertheless still a slave.

The Court further held that Congress lacked the power to abolish slavery in certain territories, thereby invalidating the careful balance that had been worked out between the North and the South on the issue. Historians have noted that this opinion fanned the flames that led to the Civil War.

The Supreme Court has also ensured adherence to the Constitution during more recent conflicts. Prominent opponents of the Vietnam War repeatedly petitioned the Court to declare the Presidential action unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had never given the President a declaration of war. The Court decided to leave this conflict in the political arena and repeatedly refused to grant writs of certiorari to hear these cases. This prompted Justice Douglas, sometimes accompanied by Justices Stewart and Harlan, to take the unusual step of writing lengthy dissents to the denials of cert.

In New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971--the so called ``Pentagon Papers'' case--the Court refused to grant the government prior restraint to prevent the New York Times from publishing leaked Defense Department documents which revealed damaging information about the Johnson Administration and the war effort. The publication of these documents by the New York Times is believed to have helped move public opinion against the war.

In its landmark civil rights opinions, the Supreme Court took the lead in effecting needed social change, helping us to address fundamental questions about our society in the courts rather than in the streets. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court struck down the principle of ``separate but equal'' education for blacks and whites and integrated public education in this country. This case was then followed by a series of civil rights cases which enforced the concept of integration and full equality for all citizens of this country, including Gamer v. Louisiana, 1961, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 1961, and Peterson v. City of Greenville, 1963.

In recent years Marbury, Dred Scott, Furman, New York Times, and Roe, familiar names in the lexicon of lawyerly discussions concerning watershed Supreme Court precedents, have been joined with similarly important cases like Hamdi, Rasul and Roper--all cases that affect fundamental individual rights. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004, the Court concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. The Court reaffirmed the nation's commitment to constitutional principles even during times of war and uncertainty. Similarly, in Rasul v. Bush, 2004, the Court held that the Federal habeas statute gave district courts jurisdiction to hear challenges of aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the U.S. War on Terrorism. In Roper v. Simmons, a 2005 case, the Court held that executions of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time of their capital crimes is prohibited by Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

When deciding issues of such great national import, the Supreme Court is rarely unanimous. In fact, a large number of seminal Supreme Court decisions have been reached through a vote of 5-4. Such a close margin reveals that these decisions are far from foregone conclusions distilled from the meaning of the Constitution, reason and the application of legal precedents. On the contrary, these major Supreme Court opinions embody critical decisions reached on the basis of the preferences and views of each individual justice. In a case that is decided by a vote of 5-4, an individual justice has the power by his or her vote to change the law of the land.

Since the beginning of its October 2005 Term when Chief Justice Roberts first began hearing cases, the Supreme Court has issued 11 decisions with a 5-4 split out of a total of 93 decisions. It has also issued 4 5-3 decisions in which one justice recused. Finally, it has issued a rare 5-2 decision in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito took no part. In sum, since the beginning of its October 2005 Term, the Supreme Court has issued l6 decisions establishing the law of the land in which only 5 justices explicitly concurred. Many of these narrow majorities occur in decisions involving the Court's interpretation of our Constitution--a sometimes divisive endeavor on the Court. I will not discuss all 16 thinly decided cases but will describe a few to illustrate my point about the importance of the Court and its decisions in the lives of Americans.

The first 5-4 split decision, decided on January 11, 2006, was Brown v. Sanders. In this case the Court considered ``the circumstances in which an invalidated sentencing factor will render a death sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the jury's weighing process.'' A majority of the Court held that henceforth in death penalty cases, an invalidated sentencing factor will render the sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale unless one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined. Similarly, Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

Last November the Supreme Court decided Ayers v. Belmontes, a capital murder case in which the Belmontes contended that California law and the trial court's instructions precluded the jury from considering his forward looking mitigation evidence suggesting he could lead a constructive life while incarcerated. In Ayers the Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the jury was precluded by jury instructions from considering mitigation evidence. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion while Justice Stevens wrote a dissent joined by three other justices.

Other 5-4 split decisions since October 2005 include United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, concerning whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when a district court refused to grant his paid lawyer permission to represent him based upon some past ethical violation by the lawyer, June 26, 2006; LULAC v. Perry, deciding whether the 2004 Texas redistricting violated provisions of the Voting Rights Act, June 28, 2006; Kansas v. Marsh, concerning the Eighth and Fourteenth Ariiendments in a capital murder case in which the defense argued that a Kansas statute established an unconstitutional presumption in favor of the death sentence when aggravating and mitigating factors were in equipoise, April 25, 2006; Clark v. Arizona, a capital murder case involving the constitutionality of an Arizona Supreme Court precedent governing the admissibility of evidence to support an insanity defense, June 29, 2006; Garcetti v. Ceballos, a case holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline, May 30, 2006.

The justices have split 5-3 4 times since October 2005.

In Georgia v. Randolph, March 22, 2006, a 5-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit a warrantless entry and search rendered the search unreasonable and invalid as to that occupant. Justice Souter authored the majority opinion. Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion as did Justice Breyer. The Chief Justice authored a dissent joined by Justice Scalia. Moreover, Justice Scalia issued his own dissent as did Justice Thomas. In Randolph, there were six opinions in all from a Court that only has nine justices. One can only imagine the spirited debate and interplay of ideas, facial expressions and gestures that occurred in oral arguments. Audio recordings are simply inadequate to capture all of the nuance that only cameras could capture and convey.

In House v. Bell, a 5-3 opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, (June 12, 2006), the Supreme Court held that because House had made the stringent showing required by the actual innocence exception to judicially-established procedural default rules, he

could challenge his conviction even after exhausting his regular appeals. Justice Alito took no part in considering or deciding the House case. It bears noting, however, that if one justice had been on the other side of this decision it would have resulted in a 4-4 tie and, ultimately, led to affirming the lower court's denial of House's post-conviction habeas petitions due to a procedural default.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a 5-3 decision in which Chief Justice Roberts took no part, the Supreme Court held that Hamdan could challenge his detention and the jurisdiction of the President's military commissions to try him despite recent enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act. A thin majority of the justices supported the decision despite knowledge that the DTA explicitly provides ``no court . . . shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay.'' In deciding the merits, the Court went on to hold that the President lacked authority to establish a military commission to try Hamdan or others without enabling legislation passed by both houses of Congress and enacted into law. This case was one of a handful of recent cases in which the Supreme Court released audiotapes or oral arguments almost immediately after they occurred. Yet it would have been vastly preferable to watch the parties' advocates grapple with the legal issues as the justices peppered them with jurisdictional, constitutional and merits-related questions from the High Court's bench.

In another fascinating 5-3 case, Jones v. Flowers, April 26, 2006, Supreme Court considered whether, when notice of a tax sale is mailed to the owner and returned undelivered, the government must take additional reasonable steps to provide notice before taking the owner's property. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that where the Arkansas Commissioner of State Lands had mailed Jones a certified letter and it had been returned unclaimed, the Commissioner had to take additional reasonable steps to provide Jones notice. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy dissented and Justice Alito took no part in the decision.

Though Jones v. Flowers involved the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment, one could draw interesting analogies to the Court's controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In Kelo, a majority of the justices held that a city's exercise of eminent domain power in furtherance of a privately initiated economic development plan satisfied the Constitution's Fifth Amendment ``public use'' requirement despite the absence of any blight. Four justices dissented in Kelo and public opinion turned sharply against the decision immediately after it was issued.

It's possible, though merely speculation, that the public ire aimed at Kelo informed what became a majority of justices in Jones v. Flowers. In a passage by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court notes, ``when a letter is returned by the post office, the sender will ordinarily attempt to resend it, if it is practicable to do so. This is especially true when, as here, the subject matter of the letter concerns such an important and irreversible prospect as the loss of a house.''

Not only lawyers but all homeowners could benefit from knowing how the Court grapples with legal issues governing the rights to their houses. My legislation creates the opportunity for all interested Americans to watch the Court in action in cases like these. From his perch on the High Court one justice has been heard to contend that most Americans could care less about the arcane legal issues argued before the Court. But as elected representatives of the people we must endeavor to view America from a bottoms-up, rather than a top-down perspective.

Regardless of ones view concerning the merits of these decisions, it is clear that they frequently have a profound effect on the interplay between the government, on the one hand, and the individual on the other. So, it is with these watershed decisions in mind that I introduce legislation designed to make the Supreme Court less esoteric and more accessible to common men and women who are so clearly affected by its decisions.

Given the enormous significance of each vote cast by each justice on the Supreme Court, televising the proceedings of the Supreme Court will allow sunlight to shine brightly on these proceedings and ensure greater public awareness and scrutiny.

In a democracy, the workings of the government at all levels should be open to public view. With respect to oral arguments, the more openness and the more real the opportunity for public observation the greater the understanding and trust. As the Supreme Court observed in the 1986 case of Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, ``People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.''

It was in this spirit that the House of Representatives opened its deliberations to meaningful public observation by allowing C-SPAN to begin televising debates in the House chamber in 1979. The Senate followed the House's lead in 1986 by voting to allow television coverage of the Senate floor.

Beyond this general policy preference for openness, however, there is a strong argument that the Constitution requires that television cameras be permitted in the Supreme Court.

It is well established that the Constitution guarantees access to judicial proceedings to the press and the public. In 1980, the Supreme Court relied on this tradition when it held in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia that the right of a public trial belongs not just to the accused, but to the public and the press as well. The Court noted that such openness has ``long been recognized as an indisputable attribute of an Anglo-American trial.''

Recognizing that in modern society most people cannot physically attend trials, the Court specifically addressed the need for access by members of the media: ``Instead of acquiring information about trials by first hand observation or by word of mouth from those who attended, people now acquire it chiefly through the print and electronic media. In a sense, this validates the media claim of acting as surrogates for the public. [Media presence] contributes to public understanding of the rule of law and to comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system.''

To be sure, a strong argument can be made that forbidding television cameras in the court, while permitting access to print and other media, constitutes an impermissible discrimination against one type of media over another. In recent years, the Supreme Court and lower courts have repeatedly held that differential treatment of different media is impermissible under the First Amendment absent an overriding governmental interest. For example, in 1983 the Court invalidated discriminatory tax schemes imposed only upon certain types of media in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue. In the 1977 case of ABC v. Cuomo, the Second Circuit rejected the contention by the two candidates for mayor of New York that they could exclude some members of the media from their campaign headquarters by providing access through invitation only. The Court wrote that: ``Once there is a public function, public comment, and participation by some of the media, the First Amendment requires equal access to all of the media or the rights of the First Amendment would no longer be tenable.''

However, in the 1965 case of Estes v. Texas, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the denial of television coverage of trials violates the equal protection clause. In the same opinion, the Court held that the presence of television cameras in the Court had violated a Texas defendant's right to due process. Subsequent opinions have cast serious doubt upon the continuing relevance of both prongs of the Estes opinion.

In its 1981 opinion in Chandler v. Florida, the court recognized that Estes must be read narrowly in light of the state of television technology at that time. The television coverage of Estes' 1962 trial required cumbersome equipment, numerous additional microphones, yards of new cables, distracting lighting, and numerous technicians present in the courtroom. In contrast, the court noted, television coverage in 1980 can be achieved

through the presence of one or two discreetly placed cameras without making any perceptible change in the atmosphere of the courtroom. Accordingly, the Court held that, despite Estes, the presence of television cameras in a Florida trial was not a violation of the rights of the defendants in that case. By the same logic, the holding in Estes that exclusion of television cameras from the courts did not violate the equal protection clause must be revisited in light of the dramatically different nature of television coverage today.

Given the strength of these arguments, it is not surprising that over the last two decades there has been a rapidly growing acceptance of cameras in American courtrooms which has reached almost every court except for the Supreme Court itself.

On September 6, 2000, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts held a hearing titled ``Allowing Cameras and Electronic Media in the Courtroom.'' The primary focus of the hearing was Senate bill S. 721, legislation introduced by Senators Grassley and Schumer that would give Federal judges the discretion to allow television coverage of court proceedings. One of the witnesses at the hearing, the late Judge Edward R. Becker, then- Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, spoke in opposition to the legislation and the presence of television cameras in the courtroom. The remaining five witnesses, however, including a Federal judge, a State judge, a law professor and other legal experts, all testified in favor of the legislation. They argued that cameras in the courts would not disrupt proceedings but would provide the kind of accountability and access that is fundamental to our system of government.

On November 9, 2005, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing to address whether Federal court proceedings should be televised generally and to consider S. 1768, my earlier version of this bill, and S. 829, Senator Grassley's ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005.'' During the November 9 hearing, most witnesses spoke favorably of cameras in the courts, particularly at the appellate level. Among the witnesses favorably disposed toward the cameras were Peter Irons, author of May It Please the Court, Seth Berlin, a First Amendment expert at a local firm, Brian Lamb, founder of C-SPAN, Henry Schleif of Court TV Networks, and Barbara Cochran of the Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation.

The notable exception was the Honorable Judge Jan DuBois of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who testified on behalf of the Judicial Conference. Judge DuBois warned of problems particularly at the trial level, where witnesses who appear uncomfortable because of cameras might seem less credible to jurors. I note, however, that appellate courts do not appear susceptible to this criticism because there are no witnesses or jurors present for appellate arguments.

The Judiciary Committee considered and passed both bills on March 30, 2006. The Committee vote to report S. 1768 was 12-6, and the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Unfortunately, due to the press of other business neither bill was allotted time on the Senate Floor.

During their confirmation hearings over the past two years, Chief Justice John Roberts stated he would keep an open mind on the issue and Justice Alito stated that as a circuit judge he unsuccessfully voted (in the minority) to permit televised open proceedings in the Third Circuit. I applaud the fact the new Chief Justice has taken steps to make the Court more open and to ensure the timely publication of audio recordings of the arguments as well as the written transcripts.

In my judgment, Congress, with the concurrence of the President, or overriding his veto, has the authority to require the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings. Such a conclusion is not free from doubt and is highly likely to be tested with the Supreme Court, as usual, having the final word. As I see it, there is clearly no constitutional prohibition against such legislation.

Article 3 of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested ``in one Supreme Court and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' While the Constitution specifically creates the Supreme Court, it left it to Congress to determine how the Court would operate. For example, it was Congress that fixed the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine. Likewise, it was Congress that decided that any six of these justices are sufficient to constitute a quorum of the Court. It was Congress that decided that the term of the Court shall commence on the first Monday in October of each year, and it was Congress that determined the procedures to be followed whenever the Chief Justice is unable to perform the duties of his office.

Beyond such basic structural and operational matters, Congress also controls more substantive aspects of the Supreme Court. Most importantly, it is Congress that in effect determines the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Although the Constitution itself sets out the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, it provides that such jurisdiction exist ``with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

Some objections have been raised to televised proceedings of the Supreme Court on the ground that it would subject justices to undue security risks. My own view is such concerns are vastly overstated. Well-known members of Congress walk on a regular basis in public view in the Capitol complex. Other very well-known personalities, presidents, vice presidents, cabinet officers, all are on public view with even incumbent presidents exposed to risks as they mingle with the public. Such risks are minimal in my view given the relatively minor ensure that Supreme Court justices would undertake through television appearances. Also, any concerns could be mitigated by focusing only on the attorneys presenting arguments. There is no requirement that the justices permit the cameras to focus on the bench.

As I explained earlier, the Supreme Court could, of course, permit television through its own rule but has decided not to do so. Congress should be circumspect and even hesitant to impose a rule mandating the televising of Supreme Court proceedings and should do so only in the face of compelling public policy reasons. The Supreme Court has such a dominant role in key decision-making functions that their proceedings ought to be better known to the public; and, in the absence of Court rule, public policy would be best served by enactment of legislation requiring the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

This legislation embodies sound policy and will prove valuable to the public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about S. 344, which provides for the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. This bill is cosponsored by Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, Senator Feingold, and, with unanimous consent Senator Cornyn--a bipartisan representation. It is identical with legislation introduced in the last Congress after having been voted out of committee, and was voted out of committee on a 12-to-6 vote. It was previously introduced in 2005. It had a hearing on November 9 of 2005 and was reported out of committee on March 30 of 2006.

The essential provision is to require televising proceedings at the Supreme Court of the United States unless the Court determines on an individual basis that there would be an inappropriate occasion and a violation of the due process rights of the parties.

The thrust of this legislation is to bring public attention and understanding of how the Supreme Court of the United States functions, because it is the ultimate decisionmaker on so many--virtually all of the cutting edge questions of our day. The Supreme Court of the United States made the decision in Bush v. Gore, essentially deciding who would be President of the United States. The Supreme Court decides cases on the death penalty, as to who will die.

It decides by 5-to-4 decisions so many vital cases, including partial-birth or late-term abortion, deciding who will live. It decides the question of who will be elected, controlling the constitutional decision on campaign contributions. It decides the constitutionality-- again, and all of the cases I mentioned are 5 to 4--on school prayer, on school vouchers, on whether the Ten Commandments may be publicly displayed, on whether affirmative action will be permitted, on whether eminent domain will be allowed--the taking of private property for governmental purposes. The Supreme Court of the United States decides the power of the President as illustrated by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld--that the President does not have a blank check and that the President is not a monarch.

The Supreme Court of the United States, again in a series of 5-to-4 decisions, has decided what is the power of Congress, declaring in U.S. v. Morrison the legislation to protect women against violence unconstitutional because the Court questioned our ``method of reasoning,'' raising a fundamental question as to where is the superiority of the Court's method of reasoning over that of the Congress. But that kind of decision, simply stated, is not understood.

Or the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with the Americans With Disabilities Act, making two decisions which are indistinguishable, upholding the statute on a paraplegic crawling into the courthouse in Tennessee and striking down the constitutionality of the statute when dealing with employment discrimination. They did so on a manufactured test of congruence and proportionality, which is literally picked out of thin air.

Under our Constitution, I respect the standing of the Supreme Court of the United States to be the final arbiter and to make the final decisions. But it is, I think, fundamental that the Court's work, the Court's operation ought to be more broadly understood. That can be achieved by television. Just as these proceedings are televised on C- SPAN, just as the House of Representatives is televised on C-SPAN, so, too, could the Supreme Court be televised on an offer made by C-SPAN to have a separate channel for Supreme Court oral arguments. There are many opportunities for the Court to receive this kind of coverage, to inform the American people about what is going on so that the American people can participate in a meaningful way as to whether the Court is functioning as a super-legislature--which it ought not to do, that being entrusted to the Congress and State legislatures, with the Court's responsibility being to interpret the law.

It should be noted that the individual Justices of the Supreme Court have already been extensively televised. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Stevens were on ``Prime Time'' on ABC TV. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on CBS with Mike Wallace. Justice Breyer was on ``FOX News'' Sunday. Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer had an extensive debate last December, which is available for viewing on the Web--and in television archives. So there has been very extensive participation by Court members, which totally undercuts one of the arguments, that the notoriety would imperil the security of Supreme Court Justices.

It is also worth noting that a number of the Justices have stated support for televising the Supreme Court. For example, Justice Stevens, in an article by Henry Weinstein on July 14, 1989, said he supported cameras in the Supreme Court and told the annual Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference at about the same time that, ``In my view, it is worth a try.''

Justice Stevens has been quoted recently stating his favorable disposition to televising the Supreme Court.

Justice Breyer, during his confirmation hearings in 1994, indicated support for televising Supreme Court proceedings. He has since equivocated, but has also noted that it would be a wonderful teaching device.

In a December 13, 2006 article by David Pereira, Justice Scalia said he favored cameras in the Supreme Court to show the public that a majority of the caseload involves dull stuff.

In December of 2000, an article by Marjorie Cohn noted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's support of camera coverage, so long as it is gavel to gavel--which can be arranged.

Justice Alito, in his Senate confirmation hearings last year, said that as a member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals he voted to admit cameras. He added that it would be presumptuous of him to state a final position until he

had consulted with his colleagues, if confirmed. But at a minimum, he promised to keep an open mind, noting that he had favored television in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Kennedy, according to a September 10, 1990, article by James Rubin, told a group of visiting high school students that cameras in the Court were ``inevitable,'' as he put it. He has since equivocated, stating that if any of his colleagues raise serious objections, he would be reluctant to see the Supreme Court televised. Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation hearings that he would keep an open mind. Justice Thomas has opposed cameras. Justice David Souter has opposed televising the Supreme Court. Justice Souter has been the most outspoken opponent of televising the Supreme Court, saying if cameras rolled into the Supreme Court, they would roll over his--as he put it-- over his dead body--a rather colorful statement. But there has been, as noted, considerable sentiment by quite a number of the Justices as to their personal views expressing favorable disposition toward televising the Supreme Court.

The question inevitably arises as to whether Congress has the authority to require televising Supreme Court proceedings, and I submit there is ample authority on Congress's generalized control over administrative matters in the Court. For example, it is the Congress which decides how many Justices there will be on the Court. It is remembered that President Roosevelt, in the mid to late 1930s, proposed a so-called ``packing of the Court'' plan to raise the number to 15. But that is a congressional judgment. The Congress decides when the Supreme Court will begin its term: on the first Monday of every October. The Congress decides what number will constitute a quorum of the Supreme Court: six. The Congress of the United States has instituted timelines that are required to be observed by the Supreme Court when determining timeliness in habeas corpus cases. So there is ample authority for the proposition that televising the Supreme Court would be constitutional.

There is an article which is due for publication in May 2007 by Associate Professor Bruce Peabody of the political science department of Fairleigh Dickinson University, and in that article, Professor Peabody makes a strong analysis that congressional action to televise the Supreme Court would be constitutional. Also, in that article Professor Peabody refers at length to the legislation which I introduced in 2005 and says that it would be constitutional and observes that:

A case could be made for reform giving rise to more wide-

ranging and creative thinking of the role and status of the

judiciary if the Supreme Court was, in fact, televised.

He further notes that:

Televising the Supreme Court could stimulate a more general

discussion about whether other reforms of the court might be

in order.

He notes that:

The so-called Specter bill would be meaningful in giving

wider play to a set of conversations that have long been

coursing through the academy about the relationship between

the court and the Congress.

The Supreme Court itself, in the 1980 decision in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, implicitly recognized, perhaps even sanctioned, televising the Court because in that case, the Supreme Court noted that a public trial belongs not only to the accused but to the public and the press as well; and that people acquire information on Court proceedings chiefly through the print and electronic media. But we know as a factual matter that the electronic media, television, is the basic way of best informing the public about what the Supreme Court does.

There was enormous public interest in the case of Bush v. Gore argued in the Supreme Court in December of 2000 after the challenge had been made to the calculation of the electoral votes from the State of Florida and whether the so-called chads suggested or showed that Vice President Gore was the rightful claimant for those electoral votes or whether then-Governor Bush was the rightful claimant.

The streets in front of the Supreme Court chambers across the green from the Senate Chamber were filled with television trucks. At that time, Senator Biden and I wrote to Chief Justice Rehnquist urging that the proceedings be televised and got back a prompt reply in the negative.

But at least on that day the Supreme Court did release an audiotape when the proceedings were over, and the Supreme Court has made available virtually contemporaneous audio tapes since. But I suggest the audio tapes do not fill the bill. They do not have the audience. They do not have the impact. They do not convey the forcefulness that televising the Supreme Court would.

There has been considerable commentary lately about the Court's workload and the Court's caseload. Chief Justice Roberts, for example, noted that the Justices:

Hear about half the number of cases they did 25 years ago.

And, he remarked that from his vantage point, outside the Court:

They could contribute more to the clarity and uniformity of

the law by taking more cases.

They have a very light backlog. In the 2005 term, only 87 cases were argued and 69 signed opinions were issued, which is a decrease from prior years. They have left many of the splits in the circuits undecided. Former Senator DeWine, when serving on the Judiciary Committee, asked Justice Alito about the unresolved authority at the circuit level. Now Justice Alito characterized that as ``undesirable.'' But that happens because of the limited number of cases which the Supreme Court takes.

There has also been concern, as noted in an article by Stuart Taylor and Ben Wittes captioned, ``Of Clerks And Perks,'' that the four clerks per Justice constitute an undesirable allocation of resources, and the Taylor-Wittes article cites the Justice's extensive extracurricular traveling, speaking, and writing, in addition to their summer recesses and the vastly reduced docket as evidence that something needs to be done to spur the Court into taking more cases.

If the Court were to be televised, there would be more focus on what the Court is doing. That focus can be given without television, but once the Supreme Court becomes the center of attraction, the center of attention, articles such as that written by Taylor and Wittes would have much more currency.

The commentators have also raised a question about the pooling of the applications for certiorari. There were, in the 2005 term, some 8,521 filers. Most of those are petitions for certiorari. That is the fancy Latin word for whether the Court will grant process to hear the case from the lower courts. As we see, the Court acts on a very small number of those cases. Only 87 cases were argued that year in a term when more than 8,500 filings were recorded, most of those constituting cases which could have been heard. And, the Supreme Court has adopted a practice of the so-called ``cert pool,'' a process used by eight of the nine Justices. Only Justice Stevens maintains a practice of reviewing the cert petitions himself on an individual basis, of course, assisted by his clerks. But when the Court is charged with the responsibility of deciding which cases to hear, it is my view that it is very problematic and, in my judgment, inappropriate for the Justices not to be giving individualized attention, at least through their clerks, and not having a cert pool where eight of the Justices have delegated the job of deciding which cases are sufficiently important to hear to a pool.

We do not know the inner workings of the pool, but I believe it is fair and safe to infer that the judgments are made by clerks. Precisely what the level of reference and what the level of consultation with the Justices is we do not know, but when an application is made to the Supreme Court of the United States to hear a case, it is my view that there ought to be individualized consideration.

That also appeared to be the view of now Chief Justice John Roberts, who said in a 1997 speech, according to a September 20, 2000, article in the Legal Times by reporter Tony Mauro where then-private practitioner John Roberts said he ``found the pool disquieting, in that it made clerks a bit too significant in determining the Court's docket.''

I would suggest that is an understatement, to give that kind of power to the clerks and, beyond that, to give that kind of power to the clerks in a pool, where the individual Justices do

not even make the delegation to their own clerks with whatever review they would then utilize but make that a delegation to a cert pool.

There have been many scholarly statements about the desirability of having greater oversight on what happens in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who was the 10th Supreme Court Chief Justice and the 27th President of the United States, said that review and public scrutiny was the best way to keep the judges on their toes. And Justice Felix Frankfurter said that he longed for the day when the Supreme Court would receive as much attention as the World Series because the status of the Supreme Court depended upon its reputation with the people.

These are the exact words of Chief Justice William Howard Taft:

Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their

decision and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than

the consciousness that every act of theirs is subject to the

intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men and to candid

criticism.

Justice Felix Frankfurter's exact words were:

If the news media would cover the Supreme Court as

thoroughly as it did the World Series, it would be very

important since ``public confidence in the judiciary hinges

on the public perception of it.''

We have a continuing dialogue and a continuing discussion as to the role of the Supreme Court in our society. We have the cutting edge questions consistently coming to the Court. We have them deciding the issues of who will live, who will die, what will be the status of prayer in the schools, what will be the status of our election laws, and through the vagaries of due process of law and equal protection, there are many standards which the Court can adopt.

I was candidly surprised, in reviewing the recent Supreme Court decisions for the confirmation hearings on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, to find how far the Court had gone in striking down the power of Congress. It was 11 years between the confirmation proceeding on Justice Breyer and the confirmation proceeding on Chief Justice Roberts. With our workload here, it is not possible, even with responsibilities on the Judiciary Committee, even with responsibilities as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to keep up with the Supreme Court opinions.

When I read United States v. Morrison, where the Supreme Court struck down the legislation protecting women against violence on a 5-to-4 decision because Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned our ``method of reasoning,'' I wondered what kind of a transformation there was when you leave the Senate Chamber, where our columns are aligned exactly with the Supreme Court columns across the green, what kind of a transformation there was with method of reasoning that there is such superior status when going to the Court. Certainly I have noted no complaint about Senators' method of reasoning when we confirm Supreme Court Justices.

Then we picked up the Americans with Disabilities Act. We had two cases--one involving Alabama which involved employment discrimination and one involving Tennessee which involved access by a paraplegic to the courtroom--dealing with exactly the same records. In the Alabama case, the Supreme Court declared 5 to 4 that the act of Congress was unconstitutional. In the Tennessee case, exactly on the same record, they decided the act was constitutional. What standard did they use? They adopted a standard on a 1997 Supreme Court decision in a case called Boerne. In that case, the Supreme Court decided they would render a constitutional judgment in a context where Congress had legislated under article V of the 14th amendment to preserve due process of law where the challenge was made by the State that the States were immune under the 11th amendment. The Supreme Court decided it would impose a test of whether the statute was ``congruent and proportional.'' This standard had never been heard in jurisprudence before that time, ``congruent and proportional.'' I defy anyone to say what those words mean in a standard which can be applied in a way which can be predicted by lawyers and understood by State legislators and understood by clients.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia chastised the Court for being, in effect, the taskmaster of the Congress, to see if the Congress had done its homework, whereas in prior cases the adequacy of the record was determined by a substantial record and the Court would defer to the judgment of Congress, which established, through lengthy hearings and proceedings, a very extensive record. In talking to my colleagues, those decisions by the Supreme Court undercutting congressional power were not known.

Then we have the Supreme Court being the final arbiter on what happens on Executive power, what happens at Guantanamo, what is the responsibility of the President of the United States on military commissions, what is the responsibility under the Geneva Conventions. Here again, I respect the Supreme Court's decisions, respect their role as the final arbiter, but say that there ought to be an understanding by the public. It may be that there will never be a case which has more impact on the working of Government than the decision as to whether the Florida electoral votes would be counted for George Bush or for Albert Gore in the famous case of Bush v. Gore.

A prior version of this legislation came out of committee last year on a bipartisan 12-to-6 vote. It has very substantial cosponsorship. I urge my colleagues to consider it carefully. I urge the distinguished majority leader to look for a spot to bring such legislation to the Senate.

There is companion legislation which Senator Grassley is offering which gives the courts--the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, trial courts--the discretion to have television. My legislation, S. 344, is more targeted. It has a requirement as to the Supreme Court televising its proceedings unless there is some due-process violation which is considered on a case-by-case basis.

When the article comes out by Professor Bruce Peabody in the University of Notre Dame Law Journal, I commend it to everyone's attention. I have advance text, have cited some of Professor Peabody's conclusions on his decision that the legislation has very important public policy benefits and, as he analyzes it, is constitutional.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the written statement be printed in the Congressional Record as if recited, and I ask that prior to the introduction of that prepared statement, my statement appear, that the comments I have made up until now have been a summary of that more extensive statement, an extemporaneous summary, and the full statement follows. Sometimes people reading the Congressional Record wonder why there is so much repetition, and I think a word of explanation that the initial statement is a summary and the formal statement is added would explain why the repetition exists.

I ask all of this explanation be printed in the Record. Finally, I ask that Senator Cornyn be included as a cosponsor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare.

Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come.

Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective.

A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance.

Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform.

Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance.

The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.''

Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report.

Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean.

Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation.

We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise.

Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock.

I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.''

The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers.

The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law.

Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider.

We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating:

This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I

guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there

has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in

finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a

suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may

well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in

1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and

find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what

happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they

agree about but only about what they differ about. And

something has got to give soon because we do not have the

choice of not resolving this issue.

Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit.

For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income.

For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income.

4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children.

The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started.

While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by

others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid.

So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward.

Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security.

In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006.

And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030.

The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire.

In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019.

The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year.

This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices.

I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress.

The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States.

First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty.

As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future.

Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge.

It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.

My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate.

My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor.

This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change.

As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill.

Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress.

My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions.

The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs.

I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single

Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security.

Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.

Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges.

This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done.

Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution.

But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy.

We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense.

The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen.

This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible.

My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action.

There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies.

Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions.

Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way.

In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves.

I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor.

Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 and I am joined in doing so by a number of my colleagues including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi. The bill we are introducing today represents a triumph of bipartisan collaboration--true consensus-building which is so vital to achieving substantive action for our constituents. Such efforts are certainly not always easy--as so many here today know--I have worked with many of you for more than 10 years on this issue.

Today we are on the threshold of a new era, as for the first time, we act to prevent discrimination before it has taken firm hold. Indeed, Senator Gregg described this legislation so well when he said it is, truly, ``the first civil rights act of the 21st Century.''

And that is what makes this legislation so unique. For in the past Congress has had to act to address existing discrimination. But today we are acting proactively to address genetic bias, before discrimination becomes entrenched.

This type of discrimination is so different than other forms. Because most discrimination is a response to an obvious trait, such as one's gender or the color of your skin. But discrimination based on one's genetic makeup involves actively looking for information on which to discriminate. Because it is so deliberate, one cannot even argue it was--on any level--subconscious or unintentional.

It used to be difficult to find such information on which to discriminate. You might be asked if you had a family history of a disorder. But today things have changed dramatically.

We have long known about a small number of genes which play a role in some diseases--such as Huntington's Disease, and early onset Alzheimer's. Yet the progress of discovery and study was so slow and tedious. But the Human Genome Project changed all that. Today, with new technology we are seeing an explosive increase in our understanding of genetics and human health.

That growing genetic knowledge offers the potential of disease cures and even customized therapies. Even more promising, genetic advances will enable us to actually prevent the development of disease. But this potential . . . and the billions spent in discovering genetic relationships and developing treatments and preventive agents . . . will certainly be in vain if Americans do not avail themselves of these advances.

To do so, Americans will need to take genetic tests. But would you do so if you knew that the information about your genetic makeup would be used against you--to deny you employment or health coverage?

Some say that kind of discrimination is but a future possibility-- that we can afford to wait until genetic discrimination begins to take a toll. But it already has done so. I learned from the real life experience of one of my constituents, Bonnie Lee Tucker. In 1997, Bonnie Lee wrote me about her fear of having the BRCA test for breast cancer, even though she has nine women in her immediate family who were diagnosed with breast cancer, and she herself is a survivor. She wrote to me about her fear of having the BRCA test, because she worried it will ruin her daughter's ability to obtain insurance in the future. And Bonnie Lee isn't the only one who has this fear. When the National Institutes of Health offered women genetic testing, nearly 32 percent of those who were offered a test for breast cancer risk declined to take it citing concerns about health insurance discrimination. Mr. President, what good is scientific progress if it cannot be applied to those who would most benefit?

And we have seen cases where some attempted to mandate genetic testing. Even when this is done to improve the delivery of health care, it must be recognized that once that information is disclosed . . . and is unprotected . . . a future employer or insurer may not necessarily use that information in such a benign way. Yet we recognize that if an individual can avail themselves of a genetic test, they may be able to take action as a result which prevents disease or premature death, and reduces the burden of high health costs. And wouldn't everyone want to see that?

I recall the testimony before Congress of Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, without whom we wouldn't have reached this day. In speaking of the next step for those involved in the Genome project, he explained that the project's scientists were engaged in a major endeavor to ``uncover the connections between particular genes and particular diseases,'' to apply the knowledge they just unlocked. In order to do this, Dr. Collins said, ``we need a vigorous research enterprise with the involvement of large numbers of individuals, so that we can draw more precise connections between a particular spelling of a gene and a particular outcome.'' Well, this effort cannot be successful if people are afraid of possible repercussions of their participation in genetic testing.

The bottom line is that, given the advances in science, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is to restrict discrimination by health insurers. The second is to prevent employment discrimination based simply upon an individual's genetic information.

Some of us saw this danger 10 years ago and the threat it could pose to millions of Americans. I think back to when Representative Louise Slaughter and I first introduced our bills to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance back in the l04th Congress. At that time the completion of the human genome seemed far away. But the science has certainly out-paced Congressional action.

The following year, with the commitment of Senators Frist and Jeffords to address this issue, I introduced a bill to ensure we would effectively provide the needed protections to prevent genetic discrimination in the health insurance industry. In turn, that bill was the basis for an amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, to the Fiscal Year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 58-40.

While that victory was a notable step forward, unfortunately, it was not followed by the enactment of our bill. It did, however, re-spark the debate--which helped lay the foundation for our subsequent efforts.

Indeed, in March of 2002, I was again joined by Senators Frist and Jeffords in introducing an updated version of our bill with the added support of Senator Gregg and Senator Enzi. That bill not only addressed what had become the real threat of employment discrimination but also captured the changing world of science as this was the first bill to include what we had learned with the completion of the Genome Project.

In June of 2003, after sixteen months of bipartisan negotiation, we achieved a unified, bipartisan agreement to address genetic discrimination. Today we again introduce the legislation encompassing that agreement, which the Senate has twice passed . . . unanimously.

The bill we are introducing again today addresses genetic discrimination in both employment and health insurance based on the firm foundation of current law. With regard to health insurance, the issues are clear and familiar, and something the Senate has debated before, in the context of the consideration of larger privacy issues. Indeed, as Congress considered what is now the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, we also addressed the issues of privacy of medical information.

Moreover, any legislation that seeks to fully address these issues must consider the interaction of the new protections with the privacy rule which was mandated by HIPAA--and our legislation does just that. Specifically, we clarify the protections of genetic information as well as information on the request or receipt of genetic tests, from being used by the insurer against the patient.

Because the fact of the matter is, genetic information only detects the potential for a genetically linked disease or disorder--and potential does not equal a diagnosis of disease. At the same time, it is critical that this information be available to doctors and other health care professionals when necessary to diagnose, or treat, an illness. This is a distinction that begs our acknowledgment, as we discuss protect patients from potential discriminatory practices by insurers.

On the subject of employment discrimination, unlike our legislative history on debating health privacy matters, the issues surrounding protecting genetic information from workplace discrimination is not as extensive. To that end, our bipartisan bill creates these protections in the workplace--and there should be no question of this need.

As demonstrated by the Burlington Northern case, the threat of employment discrimination is very real, and therefore it is essential that we take this information off the table, so to speak, before the use of this information becomes more widespread. While Congress has not yet debated this specific type of employment discrimination, we have a great deal of employment case law and legislative history on which to build.

Indeed, as we considered the need for this type of protection, we agreed that we must extend current law discrimination protections to genetic information. We reviewed current employment discrimination law and considered what sort of remedies people would have for instances of genetic discrimination and if these remedies would be different from those available to people under current law--for instance under the ADA or the EEOC. The bill we introduce today creates new protections by paralleling current law and clarifies the remedies available to victims of discrimination. Ensuring that regardless of whether a person is discriminated against because of their religion, their race or their DNA, these people will all receive the same strong protections under the law.

Indeed, I believe those who have questioned the need for this legislation will see that if we can provide these protections, then individuals can avail themselves of medical knowledge which will not only improve their health, but will reduce health care costs. For employers attempting to address the escalating cost of coverage, isn't it essential to utilize our investment in advancing medical knowledge to prevent disease and disability? Isn't that just the sort of action we need to encourage to reduce health costs and make our businesses, large and small, more competitive?

Indeed we have seen the business community recognizing the critical importance of putting our medical investment to work to reduce health costs . . . not discouraging employees from undergoing tests that could prevent disease or death. To that end, I noted during the last Congress that IBM pledged to not use genetic information in its hiring practices or in deciding eligibility for health insurance coverage. This demonstrates an admirable understanding of how such discrimination can harm both individuals and business.

It has been more than six years since the completion of the working draft of the Human Genome. Like a book which is never opened, the wonders of the Human Genome are useless unless people are willing to take advantage of it. This bill is the product of over a year of bipartisan negotiations and is a shining example of what we can accomplish if we set aside partisan differences in order to address the challenges facing the American people. Certainly this bill was only possible due to the commitment of members working together--setting aside partisanship--and for that I am grateful.

I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that it is my hope that we shall see this bill again receive the unanimous support of the Senate and that this will allow the House of Representatives to act swiftly to pass this legislation so that the President can sign this bill into law and finally ensure the American public is protected from this newest form of discrimination.