A bill to improve the administration of the Minerals Management Service.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senators Bond and Voinovich. This legislation would establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the causes of fish habitat decline.

Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well- being of our society. They provide clean water and sustainable fisheries. They also provide recreational value to those who fish wild waters or canoe tranquil streams. Unfortunately, today 40 percent of our fish populations are in decline and half of our waters are impaired. Unless we act in an informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be lost.

Our Nation's current efforts to address threats to fish species are often highly fragmented and not comprehensive enough to reverse this downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies, state and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups, and businesses will work together collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic habitats.

This legislation leverages Federal, State and private funds to build regional partnerships aimed at addressing the nation's biggest fisheries problems. By directing critical new resources towards the nation's fish and aquatic communities through these partnerships, we can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of life for the American people. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi-state aquatic habitat improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery resources but the tradition of recreational fishing.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $75 million annually to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the hugely successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a new paradigm of how fish habitats should be protected and preserved. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our nation's fish habitats and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Smith's small business health care bill, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act of 2008. The health of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens is too often neglected because they lack the income to access our languishing health care system. This legislation marshals our resources in response to the health care challenge. First, it recognizes that employees, and their families, should not have to forgo health insurance merely because they work for a small business. Second, it provides small business owners the assistance they need to obtain health coverage for their workers. Consequently, this bill offers small business workers and their families, the security many of us take for granted, by providing them access to medical care through a free and independently-regulated market.

The health care problem is nearly ubiquitous. Our fellow citizens who lack insurance increasingly find access to care insuperable. As they are denied care they increasingly stress the delivery system by seeking care from providers of last-resort, such as emergency rooms. Emergency room visits reached an all-time high in 2006. Americans visited the ER more than 119 million times that year, and the number of visits to our hospitals' emergency rooms grew 46 percent in the last 10 years. Researchers have examined the link between patient access and utilization of providers of last-resort. Health policy experts have definitively shown that patients who cannot promptly and consistently access quality medical care subsequently choose to forgo care and eventually seek treatment in emergency rooms. Medical care received in emergency rooms and hospitals as a result of neglected ailments nearly always cost more than the care forgone. In the end, patients suffer an increased rate of adverse medical outcomes; outcomes that could have been prevented and medical expenses that could have been avoided.

More than half of the Nation's 47 million uninsured individuals are employed by, or have family members who are employed by, a business with fewer than 100 employees. Smaller businesses are substantially less likely to offer their employees health coverage than larger businesses. The smaller a business is, the less likely it offers health benefits. The lack of insurance--and thus access to care prior to safety-net providers--is particularly galling among low-income workers. Research indicates that small business owners want to offer their employees health benefits but do not, because either they cannot afford to or they know their employees lack the income to enroll. In a recent poll conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 47 percent of small businesses said they would be somewhat likely to offer health benefits if they were offered a tax credit and 30 percent said they were much more likely to offer health benefits.

A bipartisan approach is the only viable solution in dealing with a problem of this size. I am pleased to introduce this bill along with Senator Smith. I am also pleased to see several other health care bills also brought forward with bipartisan support. In prior years, politics instead of policy limited the practical options for health care reform. As a result, the Congress did not address the problem in a significant way. We must look past the assignment of political victors and losers when we champion health care legislation. In the absence of reform, the real losers are our fellow citizens suffering from preventable diseases because they could not go to the doctor or did not receive care in time. They will not benefit from a merely political victory. However, while we have the means to provide succor but fail to act, they most certainly lose.

Any effort to reform health care needs to be deliberate. Our Government was established to prevent rash policy-making. Perhaps with the opportunity design health insurance from scratch, we would not rely on employers to provide coverage as a benefit. Nevertheless, our burden is to transform the system we have in order to make it work for every American. We need to assist employers who are nearly, but not quite, capable of offering insurance coverage and reward employers who have already made investments in the health of their employees.

The Affordable Coverage for Small Employees Act will help small businesses and their employees obtain and retain coverage. Moreover, it provides a framework for expanding coverage across the Nation. First, this bill offers tax credits to employers and employees of small businesses in order to abet their purchase of health insurance. Employers paying for a larger portion of their employee's coverage are rewarded with a larger credit. Employees who make a lower income receive more assistance. Without an incentive, it is highly likely that these individuals will not receive the comprehensive coverage they need and the security that comes with it.

Financial incentives alone are not enough though. Small businesses face larger administrative costs then large businesses, and consumers in the individual market face higher premiums than consumers in group plans. This bill will create a working and competitive marketplace through regional health boards. These boards will allow for businesses and employees to shop for medical coverage from multiple insurers, and even across State lines. These boards will establish a health-coverage ``exchange'' whose main objectives will be to serve as a central purchasing site for health coverage, to provide information to purchasers and consumers about participating health plans, to facilitate and streamline enrollment, and to ensure health plan compliance with minimum operating and quality standards.

Third, in order to protect consumers, an independent advisory board, the National Policy Board, in conjunction with the National Academies of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, will establish a standard benefit package in order that employees receive the coverage they need. An independent body provides the governance needed to regulate this complex marketplace while retaining insulation from the interested parties that would seek to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

There already exists evidence that this approach will work. Several States are experimenting with various forms of tax credits to expand coverage. In Oklahoma and Arizona employees and employers are being helped through tax credits to secure insurance. The initial results of these programs have been encouraging. The Federal Government has been paralyzed for too long, debating which policy prescriptions will yield success at an affordable cost. These ``laboratories of democracy'' are leading the way and this legislation follows in their spirit.

The road to substantial health care reform has been long but the path in front of us is lit brighter than the path behind us when we travelled it. Over the preceding years, our knowledge of what works, what is feasible, and what is improbable has grown immeasurably. With this knowledge and a kindred spirit, I am certain we can guarantee the best health care for every American.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act of 2008, with my colleague, Senator Joseph Lieberman. This legislation would tackle one of the nation's most pressing domestic challenges, ensuring all Americans have access to affordable, high quality health care. While the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act may not be the panacea to all of our Nation's healthcare woes, I believe it is a reasonable first step along the path of reform and it represents a viable solution to cover the uninsured.

In my view, that solution begins with helping small employers gain access to affordable, high quality health insurance. Over half of the Nation's uninsured has a connection to a business that employs fewer than 100 employees. By extending access to affordable health coverage to those individuals through their employers, we can make significant progress in reducing the number of Americans who do not have health insurance.

Broadly, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act incentivizes reform of the existing small group market so employers have access to affordable coverage options to meet their particular needs. It provides national direction to ensure consistency across the entire system, but relies upon the existing infrastructure forged by the States and the private market to ultimately provide new coverage options for small employers. Additionally, it provides graduated, income-sensitive subsidies through tax credits to low-income individuals to help offset the cost of their health coverage. It also provides graduated tax credits to small employers who contribute at least 50 percent toward the cost of their employees' premiums to encourage them to purchase coverage through new, regional purchasing exchanges.

One of the key principles of the proposal is regional cooperation. The existing system of state-based regulation of the small group market has resulted in a great deal of inefficiency in the marketing and selling of health coverage products. One of the key elements of reform from the Federal perspective should be encouraging regional cooperation--and consistency of regulation--across State lines. The Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act accounts for this by apportioning States with similar existing insurance regulations into new ``Health Coverage Exchange Regions.'' Each of these regions will be charged with developing a common set of rating guidelines so that all insurance products sold in the health coverage exchange are regulated by the same set of rules. Over time, such common regulatory policies will have the effect of stabilizing the small group market, and generating efficiencies that could lead to longterm stabilization of premium cost increases.

A stakeholder board will govern each Health Coverage Exchange Region and must include at a minimum representation from the insurance commissioners from all member States. That way, States will be the driving force in determining how to harmonize existing rating guidelines to improve stability in the small group market. Each Regional Board will have the flexibility to develop its own common rating guidelines, in addition to allowing other hard-to-cover groups, like sole proprietors and individuals, to participate in programs sponsored by the Health Coverage Exchange Region.

While adoption of the common rating guidelines is voluntary, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act provides States with generous incentives to do so. First, small employers in a given State will be unable to purchase health coverage through its region's Health Coverage Exchange unless their State has adopted the common guidelines. Additionally, small employers and employees only will have access to the Federal subsidies once the guidelines are adopted. Change can be difficult, especially in regard to reform of current regulatory structures. The bill recognizes this fact by allowing States a strong voice in developing the common rating guidelines, as well as additional flexibility to implement such guidelines in special cases where they differ significantly from existing policy.

Another key issue the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act addresses is that of ensuring small employers, regardless of their location, has access to a comprehensive health benefit package. We should not expect our small employers to settle for coverage that is far less comprehensive than what a majority of Americans have access to. Congress can and should do better on this front, and the proposal does. All small employers will have access to a standard benefit package that mirrors the benefits available to Members of Congress and other Federal employees. Over time, this benefit package will be updated to ensure that covered services reflect advances in medical science and are supported by sound, evidence-based research.

While the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act leaves most responsibility for day-to-day operations of the Health Coverage Exchange to state-based regional boards, it recognizes the need for uniformity across the entire system by creating a National Health Coverage Policy Board comprised of key stakeholders representing the health care field. This Executive-appointed, independent body will apportion States into Health Coverage Exchange Regions and set broad policy guidelines for the overall system. While I firmly believe the reforms needed to improve access in the small group market should occur at the State level, there needs to be a national presence in the overall effort to ensure health care quality, greater regulatory consistency and maximize administrative efficiencies.

I also would like to comment on the subsidies available in the legislation. Researchers and policymakers alike are well aware that there are some working Americans who simply will be unable to afford the cost of health insurance no matter how inexpensive it might be. The rhetoric surrounding the issue of the uninsured always includes reference to making health insurance more affordable and I fully support that intent. In the work Senator Lieberman and I have done on this issue, we have found that there are very few politically viable reform policies that would significantly reduce the cost of health coverage for small employers. We can implement initiatives to increase market efficiencies and provide employers with more coverage options, but those efforts still will not always make health coverage affordable for all Americans. In our proposal, allocating targeted, advanceable and refundable tax credits to those who need them is the Federal Government's primary responsibility.

To further encourage participation in the Exchange and to recognize the important role employers have in funding health benefits, the Affordable Coverage for Small Employers Act also includes advanceable, refundable tax credits for employers. Employers that contribute at least 50 percent of employees' premiums would be eligible for these tax credits to help offset the cost of their share of health coverage. I believe this approach will help employers who may be struggling to make ends meet and provide their employees the health coverage they need to stay healthy and productive.

It is essential that Congress act on this issue. We owe it to our small employers to ensure they have the same health benefit options available to them as larger employers, whose size and structure allow them to self-fund insurance coverage for their employees. The small business community is the backbone of the American economy, representing over 99 percent of all the Nation's businesses. But we often fail to recognize the essential role small businesses play in the economy. Each year, they provide approximately 75 percent of new jobs; account for over half of private sector output; and provide 40 percent of private sales. Small businesses represent the realization of the American dream. However, even with all their successes, there are many challenges that threaten their continued vitality.

In the unfurling healthcare reform debate, there is no shortage of innovative ideas. Aggressive proposals have been introduced on both sides of the aisle just this year. With over 46 million Americans uninsured and many more struggling with the cost of coverage, the time has come for Congress

to seriously reform our health care system to ensure all Americans have access to care. Should support exist to pursue a comprehensive change, there are several proposals that hold a number of good ideas that combine the best of private and public section ingenuity. Recognizing that many people like receiving their health insurance through their employer; Congress may choose to pursue a more incremental approach-- focusing first on fixing the part of the system that is not working-- the small group market. For a reform debate to be successful, we need to bring all key stakeholders to the negotiating table, including employers. We share common problems, and we must work to develop common solutions.

As Congress continues its discussion of healthcare reform; I am hopeful that the concepts included in this proposal will be given full consideration as we begin to develop solutions to the difficult, long- standing problems in the health insurance market. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft policies that significantly expand small employers' access to quality health insurance coverage. This is the help they deserve, and this is the help that I know we can give them if we put our ideological differences aside and begin working together to make real progress on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571.

Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic collaboration across Federal agencies. We should have confidence that policies and programs from one office support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's structure.

For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and healthy eating, as they should be?

I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health.

Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local environments wisely.

Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss opportunities to get it right.

Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of facilities and other unwanted health consequences.

However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased.

Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to cost $128 per person per year.

So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical activity is a good investment.

We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure.

We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 percent higher than the 10 least sprawling.

We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and preserve habitats and biodiversity of species.

We can improve social connectedness by how we design our environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and time for family members to spend together or involved in their communities.

My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in this country, although they have been successfully used for years in Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health.

Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants.

My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and transportation policy and plans.

I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's Health for their help and support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Sessions in introducing a bipartisan bill that would greatly improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. The Judicial Administration and Technical Amendments Act of 2008 is an attempt to assist the Federal judiciary by replacing antiquated processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools for the 21st century.

I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108 Congress. I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with unanimous support and not be held up by a Republican objection like the similar measure I introduced 4 years ago. I have also supported past legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the administration of justice in our Federal courts.

In recent years, the job of the Federal judge has changed considerably. Today, Federal judges at both the trial and appellate level are hearing more cases with fewer available judicial resources. We have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps them keep up with changing times and circumstances.

Our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect it. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men who honorably serve on our judiciary to ably fulfill their critical responsibilities.

The legislation we introduce today contains technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses. The legislation also contains additional proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties.

First, the provisions in the bill facilitate and update judicial operations. For example, the bill would authorize realignments in the place of holding court in specified district courts. It also would remove a ``public drawing'' requirement for the selection of names for jury wheels, which is now a function performed more efficiently by computers. These provisions would add convenience to the men and women--who as lawyers, litigants, and jurors--appear before our Federal courts.

Second, the bill contains provisions that would improve judicial resource management and strengthen the constitutional protection of Americans' right to serve on juries. The bill would make a juror eligible to receive a $10 supplemental fee after 10 days of trial service instead of 30 days. Juries serve to vindicate the rights of all Americans, including the poor, the powerless, and the marginalized. I am glad this bill takes steps to ensure that economic hardship will not be an obstacle to an individual performing his or her duty to serve on a jury.

No American should be threatened or intimidated from exercising their right to serve on a jury. This legislation would strengthen the penalties for employers who retaliate against employees serving on jury duty. It would do so by increasing the maximum civil penalty for an employer who retaliates against an employee serving on jury duty from $1,000 to $5,000 and add the potential penalty of community service. The bill also provides district courts with the discretion to bring into court those individuals who fail to respond to jury summons, instead of having their appearance mandated by statute. This improvement would empower Federal judges to decide what action is appropriate for those who fail to respond to a jury summons.

Third, in the area of criminal justice, provisions in the bill would also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. The bill makes technical corrections to a Federal probation and supervised release statute. By correcting these technical errors, we restore the original intent of Congress, including that intermittent confinement applies to supervised release as well as probation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware that confinement, even intermittent confinement, is not always the appropriate response. I am glad that this provision includes the proper safeguards and limitations to ensure that intermittent confinement will not be abused.

The legislation would also explicitly authorize the Director of Administrative Office to provide goods and services to pretrial defendants and clarifies similar authority recently made available for post-conviction offenders through the Second Chance Act of 2007. Under current law, there is no explicit statutory authority to provide for services on behalf of offenders who do not suffer from substance abuse problems or psychiatric disorders. This provision would fill in that gap by providing services to pretrial defendants to ensure their appearance at trial.

Finally, the bill would ensure sufficient representation by Federal judges among the members of the Sentencing Commission. In 2003, House Republicans saddled the bipartisan and non-controversial AMBER Alert bill with numerous unrelated and ill-conceived

provisions, collectively known as the ``Feeney Amendment,'' that effectively overturned the basic structure of the carefully crafted sentencing guideline system. The bill we introduce today contains a provision, similar to the JUDGES Act that I cosponsored in 2003, that would reverse the provisions in the Feeney Amendment that limited the number of Federal judges who can serve on the Sentencing Commission. Our Federal judges are experts on sentencing policy, indeed they preside over criminal sentencing proceedings daily; I am glad this restoration has been included.

This important legislation has the support of the Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and senators on both sides of the aisle. Our judiciary needs these improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly pass this noncontroversial legislation.

Mr. President, today Senator Barrasso and I are introducing legislation to reform the Minerals Management Service at the U.S. Department of Interior. Most Americans have probably never heard of the Minerals Management Service. At least they hadn't heard of it until the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a report a couple of weeks ago documenting sordid details of MMS employees accepting gifts and dinners and drugs and sex from employees of the oil and gas companies they were supposed to be doing business with on behalf of American taxpayers.

The MMS is responsible for collecting over $10 billion a year in lease and royalty payments from companies that drill for oil and gas and mine coal and minerals on our Federal public lands, both onshore and offshore. MMS is also the agency that actually issues the leases for drilling to oil and gas companies off our coasts. And when you hear the call for more oil drilling just remember that it is MMS that's responsible for issuing those leases and making sure that oil and gas companies protect the environment and pay their fair share of royalties to the American people. And that should give everyone pause.

Two years ago, I stood here on the floor and spoke for several hours to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of our offshore oil and gas leasing program involving MMS and the royalty relief program. The problem then was the failure of MMS to include a key clause in almost 1,000 leases that would have required oil and gas companies to pay the U.S. Treasury higher royalties if the price of oil and gas increased.

The law MMS was supposed to be implementing was originally written back in the mid-1990's when oil prices were low--around $15 a barrel, to encourage drilling by giving oil companies a break on paying royalties on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The royalties didn't kick in until the price of oil rose to a certain point where the companies would make a profit. Oil prices, as we now know, didn't stay low, but it turns out that ``royalty relief'' didn't phase out the way it should have. We learned that the MMS had bungled things so badly that they forgot to include provisions in their leases requiring any royalties on those particular leases.

At the time, the Government Accountability Office estimated that this single dereliction of duty--which covered leases issued between 1995 and 2000--would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion . . . and that was based on oil prices of between $50 and $70 dollars--half of what oil prices have been this year. GAO recently updated that amount to as much as $14.7 billion. We held hearings on this problem in the Energy Committee but the bottom line is that nothing has been done to fix this problem.

We have also learned from Inspector General and from agency whistleblowers that MMS has essentially stopped conducting audits of the billions of dollars of royalty payments it collects, and it has allowed oil and gas companies to improperly change the amount they owe by allowing them to self-report adjustments to their royalties affecting millions of dollars in payments.

Most recently, the Inspector General for the Department of Interior, Earl Devaney, has issued a report that details his office's criminal investigation into the Royalty-in-Kind program at the Minerals Management Service. Under the Royalty-in-Kind program, oil and gas companies are allowed to pay their royalties to the Federal Government not in dollars, but by physically delivering barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas to MMS. MMS, in turn, is responsible for selling that oil and gas and turning the proceeds over to the Treasury. The Inspector General found that instead of putting the American people first, employees of the RIK program put themselves first. Mr. Devaney's investigation, in his words, found ``a culture of ethical failure.''

I am not going to go through all of the sordid details of what the IG found, but I do ask unanimous consent to include his four page summary following my remarks.

The bottom line is that this is an agency that is broken and needs to be fixed. The legislation that Sen. Barrasso and I are introducing will start to fix it.

The legislation has five major components

It requires that the head of the MMS be appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. MMS is the only major bureau within the Interior Department that does not require its director to be confirmed by the Senate.

It requires MMS to implement a comprehensive audit program, including on-site financial audits of royalty payments.

It gives the Secretary of the Interior 60 days to implement all of the Inspector General's recommendations from

both the May business practices report and the more recent September ethics report. If that deadline is not met, the Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program would be suspended.

It requires the Secretary to annually ``re-certify'' that the RIK program meets all Federal ethics and procurement laws and regulations. If that recertification is not completed, the RIK program would be suspended.

It directs the Inspector General to annually review the MMS program, including the RIK certification process.

I am pleased that Sen. Barrasso, the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which I chair, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bill. While it does not specifically address every single problem at MMS, it will begin to establish some basic accountability in an agency that has demonstrated that it has none.

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