Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to express my unequivocal support for landmark energy legislation before us today that will revive our long dormant energy policy. I want to especially recognize Senator Feinstein for her resolve in including momentous, benchmark CAFE standards for the first time in three decades--without her tenacity this critical component would not be included in this legislation. Furthermore, I want to thank Senators Inouye, Stevens, Bingaman, and Domenici for crafting this historic legislation. And it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Feinstein for the past 7 years toward this goal and authoring with her the CAFE measure that was the basis for the provision included in this bill, and that is central to our environmental well-being.

As record energy costs continue to saddle Americans and hamper the growth of our economy, this legislation is, quite frankly, long overdue. Since the Senate passed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act in June, our failed energy policy has proliferated into a crisis. Currently, in my home State of Maine, trucks remain idle because the prohibitive cost of diesel--an astonishing 43 percent higher than last year--has made trucking simply unprofitable and untenable for many. And as I speak, residents in Washington County in Maine as well as other areas around the State--are contemplating whether to purchase food, medicine or heat.

The reality is, our energy policy has ambled aimlessly for decades-- and Mainers and Americans are quite literally paying the price. As a result, this timely energy legislation could not be more critical as it represents the initial step toward the boldness of leadership on this issue that the American people desire and require. Indeed, the bill before the Senate represents a departure--finally--from the regressive policies of the 20th century to a sustained long-term energy policy that both challenges and harnesses the U.S. preeminent attribute of innovation.

And this change comes not a moment too soon. The fact is, while each of us understands the unacceptable cost of gasoline, heating oil, and electricity for our constituents, we must also be cognizant that our energy policy has been a boon to America's adversaries. As Thomas Friedman recently remarked, petro-authoritarianism is sweeping the globe. In 2005, Iran earned $44.6 billion from crude oil exports when oil was $50 a barrel--now it is $90. The reality is, our current energy policy directly shifts America's hard-

earned money to the least democratic countries and most dangerous in the world including Venezuela and indirectly to Iran.

Although this is, in itself, an undeniable reason to change our energy policy, our failed approaches of the past are also manifested in the challenge of global climate change. The release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change completed in mid-November concluded that climate change is ``unequivocal'' and accelerating. Indeed this summer, the Arctic Ocean exposed 1 million square miles of open water, the most that has been determined since measurements have been taken. Quite frankly, it is beyond dispute that the United States must take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions and stem climate change.

That is why this timely legislation is absolutely essential to our Nation's security and our environment--as well as our pocketbooks and wallets. Indeed this body is on the brink of forging an energy policy that would provide dividends to the American consumer, enhance American security, and reestablish American leadership on environmental issues by confronting climate change. The question now is, Will we?

We can't afford to wait and, on that note, I particularly want to highlight the inclusion of the CAFE provisions that will finally place this country on track to substantially improve our Nation's automobile fleet from 25.2 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Because this provision that Senator Feinstein and I authored is the most significant step our Nation can take to address our long-term energy crisis.

As the New York Times stated on November 14th, ``The single most effective way to address the problem of oil imports and consumption is to improve the efficiency of cars and light trucks, which use more than two-thirds of all the oil burned in the United States.'' This legislation will save Americans 1.1 million barrels of oil per day-- nearly the same amount imported from Saudi Arabia. And at a time when thousands of families are struggling to provide the basic necessity of heat in their homes, indisputably we must not squander oil through inefficiency.

There is no question this is a measure whose time has long since come, given the last time Congress comprehensively adjusted CAFE standards was over 30 years ago, in 1975, when the price of gasoline was 60 cents per gallon. Yet all we have done in 32 years is raise CAFE by a measly 5 miles per gallon for light trucks and not at all for passenger vehicles. It is like the program that time forgot. That is why this provision is essential for any comprehensive energy legislation.

The legislation significantly before us achieves the goal of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 through an attribute-based system, incorporating the 2001 National Academy of Science's recommendation that ``Consideration should be given to designing and evaluating an approach with fuel economy targets that are dependent on vehicle attributes such as vehicle weight.'' Why is this important? Because this concept maintains a critical component of America's automobile fleet, and that is consumer choice.

This is the innovative approach that Senator Feinstein and I developed that focuses not on defacto mandates on what type of vehicles are built and sold but rather on the end result of overall fuel savings. And I am particularly pleased that the auto companies have recognized the merits in this proposal and support this initiative. This represents a sea change from the previous divisiveness of this central issue, and I want to applaud my colleagues who worked with Senator Feinstein, Senator Inouye, and I to craft this historic breakthrough that represents a new automotive era, ensuring that we will not return to the wasteful gas-guzzling days of the past.

Furthermore, this legislation provides critical tax incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy, to wean ourselves off the expensive foreign petroleum that, as I have said, also serves to line the pockets of some of the world's most dangerous tyrants. This country, quite frankly, has abrogated its commitment to a substantial investment in altering our energy policy--a problem encapsulated in a special report in the Economist, which stated that, regrettably ``America's incentives for clean energy'' are ``relatively modest compared to Europe's.'' Furthermore, the article illustrates that, ``what one politician can mandate, another can terminate--and therein lies one of the biggest risks for clean energy. American politicians have periodically allowed a tax break for wind generation to expire, for example. This caused the industry to falter several times, before the credit was renewed again.''

Accordingly, I am extremely disappointed that this legislation fails to extend the vital renewable production tax credit. If we truly want to alter our Nation's energy policy we must make substantial investments and it confounds me why we elected not to make that a national priority.

In addition, I want to voice my strong opposition to the inexplicable removal of the renewable portfolio standard to create a market for sustainable resources. The State of Maine has demonstrated that this provision stimulates the development of hydropower, wind, solar, tidal, and biomass energy with more than 30 percent of our energy flowing from these sources. Enactment of this strong RPS would have promoted fuel diversity and reduced our substantial dependence of natural gas. This reliance on natural gas was unfortunately illustrated in Maine last week when a Canadian supply disruption of imported natural gas forced to shut down two natural gas plants. Frankly, we must promote energy diversity to ensure energy reliance--and this strong Renewable Portfolio Standard that his legislation fails to include would have ensured that Americans would have received 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources and ensured a basic level of diversity while promoting clean energy. I urge my colleagues to address this central issue in the future.

On the more positive side, I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, and also House Small Business Committee Chair Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot, to fashion a bipartisan small business title to this Energy Bill. This title includes virtually all of the provisions in the ``Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007'' (S. 1657), which Senator Kerry and I introduced in June.

This year, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, of which I am the ranking member, has paid particular attention to the effects of climate change and escalating fuel costs on small businesses, and the role America's entrepreneurs can play in affecting change in these areas. Chairman Kerry and I have already devoted two hearings during the 110th Congress to these subjects as clearly rising gas prices and global warming are having a devastating affect on the health of small business in this country.

As we all recognize, small business is the backbone of our Nation's economy. As the leading Republican on the Small Business Committee and as a longstanding steward of the environment, I firmly believe that small business has a pivotal role to play in finding a solution to global climate change. According to a recent survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, 75 percent of small businesses believe that energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, only 33 percent of those had successfully invested in energy efficiency programs for their businesses.

We must significantly improve energy efficiency investment by small businesses. To that end, the small business title in the Energy bill will make the SBA's Express Loan Program available to small businesses that wish to purchase renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements to their businesses. I firmly believe that the SBA Express Loan will be an attractive option to small business owners looking to make their businesses more energy efficient and environmentally sound because of the program's quick turnaround time and the ability of participating lenders to use their own forms and procedures for fast approval.

Another key provision would encourage small business innovation in energy efficiency, by creating a priority under the Small Business Innovation

Research, SBIR, program for solicitations by small businesses that participate in or conduct energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development.

The small business title would also create a pilot, competitive grant program that would be administered through the national network of Small Business Development Centers, which would provide ``energy audits'' to small businesses to enhance their energy efficiency practices, as well as offer access to information and resources on energy efficiency practices.

Finally, the small business title will ensure that the SBA completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Within 6 months of enactment, the SBA, through a final rulemaking, would be mandated to complete all of its requirements under the Energy Policy Act, including setting up a ``Small Business Energy Clearinghouse'' that builds on the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program to assist small business in becoming more energy efficient. Frankly, I am alarmed by the lack of progress that SBA has made on these requirements, which President Bush signed into law nearly 2\1/2\ years ago. Unfortunately, this may be one more example of the administration's unwillingness to lead on actions to address global warming. By contrast, the small business title will help to ensure that the SBA finally completes its requirements under the Energy Policy Act and actually play a leading role in combating global climate change.

It is my hope that the small business title in the Energy bill will spur more small firms to make a smaller carbon ``footprint'' and play a leading role in the actions that are essential in combating global warming. Assisting small firms in this regard will not only help the environment but will also significantly lower the energy costs for cash-strapped small businesses.

Given our Nation's energy crisis, we must pursue every opportunity to pursue energy savings, and I therefore must express my strong disappointment that the issue of truck weights was not considered in this legislation. This is a timely issue that has unnecessarily placed the Maine trucking industry and the safety of our residents in jeopardy.

The issue, quite frankly, defies even the most elementary logic. Currently, arbitrary rules create two distinct truck weight limits that capriciously bisect the State at Augusta. Specifically, from the New Hampshire/Maine border to Augusta trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on Interstate 95. However, beyond this point all the way from Augusta to Houlton--a distance of 200 miles--the regulation recedes to 80,000 pounds.

As a result, north of Augusta, heavy trucks are forced onto smaller, secondary roads that pass through our cities, towns, and villages and they fail to use the Federal highway system. This mosaic of Federal regulations unnecessarily costs our Nation energy by requiring additional truck trips to meet the needless 80,000 limitation. Truckers must make additional trips for the transportation of fish, lumber, blueberries, and potatoes, which increases the costs of these goods and regrettably has become a major safety issue on the secondary roads of Maine with these massive trucks speeding through Maine's communities. With diesel prices upwards of $3.70, the problem has burgeoned into a full crisis and this Federal medley of regulations must end and I urge my colleagues to support me in creating a uniform 100,000-limit restriction on Maine's Federal highways.

Overall, I am pleased that this legislation is reflective of the broad ramifications of our energy plan and provides the beginning of a commensurate response to our energy crisis. The manifestations of our current strategy are discernible in some of the greatest issues facing America. The critical issues of climate change, the trade imbalance, and a restricted foreign diplomacy in the Middle East are all directly related to our failed energy strategy. We are realizing, with increasing clarity, the consequences of an oil-based energy policy.

Now, with this Energy bill before us, this is a critical initial step but is only the first. A glaring absence in this bill is the preeminent issue of climate change. It is incumbent on this Congress to build momentum from the recent G8 meeting and pass legislation that reestablishes American leadership on this critical environmental issue. Currently, the entire world is meeting in Bali, Indonesia, waiting for an answer from America. The Environment and Public Work's Committee passage of the first comprehensive climate change legislation, coupled with the action today, resoundingly declares that American leadership is hopefully on its way. As I have worked with Senators McCain and Lieberman for 4 years on the Climate Stewardship Act, as well as Senator Kerry on Global Warming Reduction Act, I remain absolutely committed to passing climate change legislation. The legislation before the Senate does not replace the need for comprehensive climate legislation, and I look forward to bringing this fundamental energy and environmental issue to the floor of the Senate when we return after the New Year.

Again, this bill represents critical progress toward a comprehensive energy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the additional components to finally achieve American energy independence.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their

income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Redwood

Valley County Water District Loan Renegotiation Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Boxer is a cosponsor of this bill.

This bill seeks to remove roadblocks to the implementation of 1988 legislation that requires the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate debts owed by the Redwood Valley County Water District to the United States. Enactment of this bill is necessary so that Redwood Valley can obtain a reliable water supply.

In 1983, the Redwood Valley County Water District completed a project which supplied water to a rural agricultural community near Ukiah, CA. Two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling $7.3 million contributed to the financing of this project.

Unfortunately, the District was unable to repay these loans. This occurred for several reasons: The projected water use in the original feasibility study, developed by the District and reviewed by the Bureau, was seriously flawed; the District's ability to raise necessary revenues was compromised by a judicially imposed moratorium on new hook-ups; and concerns for endangered species reduced the District's potential water supply allotment by 33 percent.

As a result, in 1988 Congress passed Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 which indefinitely suspended the District's obligations to repay these Bureau loans and ordered the Secretary of Interior to renegotiate the loans. This loan renegotiation has yet to take place and now the District finds that its water supply is highly uncertain.

In 2000 in a report on Redwood Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation recognized these changed conditions, and concluded that the District needs a reliable water supply before it can solve its current financial dilemma.

The District recently identified two potential new projects, either of which could prove a reliable water source. No government funds will be sought for these projects. The District intends to rely on private financing, a strategy that the Bureau of Reclamation is encouraging. However, before the District can secure private financing for new projects, it must renegotiate the existing loans to provide for their repayment subsequent to the repayment of the new loans.

The existing loans are an impediment to the District's attempts to upgrade elements of its existing plant. As an example, the District unsuccessfully sought private financing to build a 100 kW solar panel project. This project would have enabled the District to cut its energy costs and to qualify for energy rebates.

Significantly, this legislation requires the District to repay to the United States the currently suspended loans once the District's new loans have been paid.

The only difference between this bill and S. 3189, which I introduced last year, is to clarify that no renegotiations are required to trigger the District's obligations to repay the loans and the Secretary of Interior ``shall reschedule the payments due'' once the District has satisfied its additional financial obligations.

The proposed water projects will enable the District to generate adequate revenues to allow the District to repay both its new private loans and its original loans from the United States. By providing a workable and reasonable solution to a longstanding problem, this legislation creates a win-win solution for taxpayers of the United States and the rate payers of the Redwood Valley County Water District.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation from the last Congress that would bring all electronic surveillance of terrorists under the color of law and would modernize the rules for conducting such surveillance. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, has co- sponsored this legislation.

We all agree that the President and the Intelligence Community should have all the tools they need to find the terrorists before they have a chance to strike us again. This cannot be said too many times in too many ways.

We also agree, though, that these intelligence tools can and should be used in a way that protects the constitutional and privacy rights of all Americans. That is the balance that this legislation attempts to strike.

Nowhere is this more at issue than in electronic surveillance, where government officials record the content of Americans' phone and electronic communications. This important means of obtaining critical counterterrorism information is at the same time a significant, constitutionally recognized intrusion into Americans' privacy rights.

It is worth reminding ourselves of this. We have recently focused on the use of National Security Letters, through which the FBI inappropriately obtained telephone records of at least hundreds of Americans. Electronic surveillance goes far beyond records and collects the actual content--the words spoken over the phone or typed in email.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of why this legislation is necessary, as it has been several months before this was the top legislative issue before the Senate.

For more than five years since September 11, 2001, the National Security Agency collected the content of calls from or to United States persons--citizens and permanent residents--without a court order as is required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

This surveillance was done without notifying and seeking authorization from the congressional intelligence committees. The President and Vice President have very closely restricted disclosure of information about what they call the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program.''

Until this surveillance came to light through an article in The New York Times in December 2005, only eight members of Congress were briefed on it. Even after the article came out, the White House refused to brief the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees for several months.

Even now, the Intelligence Committee does not have all the information it needs to carry out its Constitutional oversight duties.

Throughout 2006, the Judiciary Committee debated various bills to authorize or prohibit electronic surveillance outside of FISA. The bill that Senator Specter and I authored last year, which is being re- introduced today, was reported out of Judiciary on a bipartisan vote on September 13, 2006. The Senate, however, took no legislative action prior to adjournment.

Then, on January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notified the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had authorized the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since January, the program has proceeded

under Court supervision, as is required by FISA.

I was pleased that the Administration submitted the TSP to the FISA Court, and that the Court had found a way to issue an order approving this surveillance. I was pleased, but not surprised.

I had maintained throughout the legislative debate last year that it would not take many changes for the TSP to fit under the confines of FISA. All it took was the willingness of the Administration to follow legal process.

Members may ask, given the recent developments, why legislation is now necessary. There are two reasons.

The first is that the Senate should enact this bill is because this Administration has never conceded the point that it cannot conduct electronic surveillance outside of the law. It has put the TSP under FISA Court review, but it asserts that it has the right not to do so. Future Administrations, if not enjoined, may take the same view.

I disagree with this legal analysis.

Secondly, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the FBI, and the Attorney General have said on many occasions that FISA is outdated and in need of modernization. The current FISA process is too bureaucratic, too slow to initiate electronic surveillance from the time a suspected terrorist's phone or email account is identified.

This bill addresses those concerns by providing new flexibility and additional resources to speed the FISA process and allow for the more timely collection of valuable intelligence.

Allow me to summarize the legislation. The bill: re-iterates that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes.

Specifies that FISA's requirements cannot be written off through contorted interpretations of other statutes. The Administration's tortured argument with respect to the Authorization for the 2001 Use of Military Force (AUMF) notwithstanding, this legislation would specify that FISA's language can only be undone by a specific and direct Act of Congress.

Requires that Congress, through the Intelligence Committees, be fully briefed on the Terrorist Surveillance Program and any related surveillance programs.

Requires the Supreme Court to review, on an expedited basis, the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Streamlines the current ``emergency procedures'' in FISA. Currently, the Attorney General can authorize surveillance prior to a Court order for 72 hours in an emergency. This legislation would extend the time to one week, which should remove any doubt as to whether Court approval can be sought and obtained in time. The bill also allows the Attorney General to delegate his authority to initiate electronic surveillance in an emergency to specific supervisory officials at the NSA and FBI.

Authorizes additional personnel to expedite the writing, submission, and review of FISA applications. Specifically, additional FISA Court judges and staff are authorized, as are additional positions at the Department of Justice, FBI, and NSA.

Extends the existing FISA authority--for 15 days of warrantless surveillance following a declaration of war--to any 30-day period following an authorization for the use of military force or a national emergency following a terrorist attack.

Allows the National Security Agency to take full advantage of its capabilities to collect intelligence on foreign communications.

While foreign-to-foreign communications are not covered now by FISA's requirements, the NSA can only conduct surveillance on these calls if it can be sure, in advance, that a telephone call of email won't transit the United States or unexpectedly end here. In the age of cell phones and the global telecommunications system, this a priori certification is very difficult to make. This legislation therefore specifies that in such inadvertent collection cases, the NSA must minimize the data, but that it has not violated the law.

Finally, the legislation clarifies that FISA court orders for electronic surveillance must be individualized to a particular target that the government has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

From the briefings I have received as a member of the Intelligence Committee and the hearings held in Judiciary, I am convinced that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an important anti-terrorism tool that should be continued.

It is also clear from the January FISA Court ruling that the Terrorist Surveillance Program can be conducted within the confines of FISA. It is appropriate now for Congress to re-iterate that this is the appropriate arrangement.

This is by no means an issue that has been overtaken by events. The Administration continues to support a view of plenary authority in which it can conduct electronic surveillance in violation of FISA. The NSA and the FBI continue to labor under a process that was formed 29 years ago, prior to fundamental changes in the telecommunications system.

I urge the Senate to act to ensure that the law is followed and privacy rights upheld, and to provide the Intelligence Community the tools it needs to continue to make us safe.

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

Mr. President, before I introduce my legislation, The Combat Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, I would like to briefly talk about the unfair treatment and the deplorable health care conditions found at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I feel that the current situation there has some bearing on my legislation.

Walter Reed is one of the Army's best-known and premier medical facilities for wounded service members in the country. Numerous reports by the Government Accounting Office and transcripts of congressional testimony

indicate that many of our military facilities for wounded outpatients are in disarray. These facilities are plagued by mold, mice, stained carpets, and a system ill equipped to handle another generation of psychologically scarred veterans.

Nearly 4,000 outpatients are currently in the military's Medical Holding companies, which oversee the wounded. Soldiers and veterans across the country report bureaucratic neglect similar to Walter Reed's: untrained staff; misplaced paperwork; lost computer generated medical appointments; and long waits for consultations. These serious problems have resulted from bureaucratic red tape and substandard health care conditions. This situation is unacceptable. We have not fulfilled our covenant, nor have we kept our promise to take care of our troops.

Our dedicated service members took an oath to serve our Nation. We as policy makers have a moral obligation to take care of these dedicated service men and women that have shown heroic patriotism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

``As described in the Washington Post'', It is not just a problem at Walter Reed: others describe depressing living conditions for outpatients at military bases throughout the country. Let me share with you the comments of a 70-year-old soldier, Mr. Oliva, who is worried about the military health care our wounded will receive. He described his own troubling experiences at the VA hospital in Livermore, CA.

``It is not just Walter Reed,'' Mr. Oliva states. ``The VA hospitals are not good either except for the staff members who work so hard. It brings tears to my eyes when I see my brothers and sisters having to deal with these conditions.''

Mr. Oliva is but one voice in a vast outpouring of emotion and anger about the treatment of wounded outpatients at Walter Reed. Stories of neglect and substandard care have flooded in from soldiers, their family members, veterans, doctors and nurses working inside the system. This is appalling and an embarrassment to our Nation.

I am particularly concerned that some of the highest ranking officials were aware of the problem for almost two years, but took no action to correct the situation. While we have seen some positive signs from the fallout over the scandal, such as the firing of the head of Walter Reed and the establishment of a bipartisan commission, more must be done.

Our soldiers receive first class care in combat, and they should receive the same level of care in our own country. Congress must lead the way in this effort. We must continue our efforts and pass legislation that will improve the quality of life for all of America's heroes, including providing them with the benefits they have earned.

Today, I join with many of my Senate colleagues to fight and end the ban on current receipt so that disabled veterans can get the fair benefits they deserve. We have made some progress over the last few years, but as everyone knows, we still have a lot of work to do.

The legislation I am introducing today--the Combat-Related Special Compensation Act of 2007, would continue to chip away at this unfair policy, by giving pro-rated retirement benefits to our service men and women who are forced into early retirement because of their combat- related injuries.

Our veterans on a day-to-day basis sacrifice their life for our country. As public servants, we Americans owe it to our dedicated service men and women to end this inequity. We must support our troops; we must ensure that those who serve us with dignity and valor receive these deserving benefits. They have earned it and they deserve it.

My legislation will take care of soldiers who had hoped to make the military a career, but were discharged prematurely for an injury sustained in combat and forced to retire medically before attaining 20 years of service.

Like many of you, I have visited military hospitals on several occasions and have seen first hand the injuries sustained by our military personnel. Many of the members have reached the 10-, 12-, 14- year marks of their military careers and have been forced to retire medically before they meet the 20-year requirement to receive full benefits. Right now, these soldiers receive combat-related disability benefits, but are not eligible to receive retirement benefits because they cannot fulfill the 20-year service requirement.

This is a travesty to treat our dedicated service men and women inequitably. It's wrong.

We should not penalize veterans because they incurred a combat- related injury while serving their country. This legislation will ensure they will receive both their prorated military retirement pay, along with their disability compensation.

Let me point out that this legislation is especially important given the injuries sustained by these troops that are currently serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters throughout the world. This legislation is essential for the more than 23,000 injured personnel who are returning from war. The widespread use of improvised explosive devices (IED) has created numerous amputees and therefore, result in an increase in medically discharged veterans. As described in stories reported by the Washington Post, a 25-year-old soldier got to close to an IED in Iraq and was sent to Walter Reed, where doctors did all they could before shipping the soldier to the VA for the remainder of his life. Will this young soldier be one of the victims of war that do not receive disability compensation and military retirement pay?

Mr. President, ensuring our veterans receive retirement benefits they have earned is the right thing to do, especially in light of recent issues surrounding the treatment of patients at Walter Reed. We must never forget the sacrifices our service men and women have made to protect our freedom. They serve because they love this great country. Taking care of our veterans is not only the right thing to do; it is also important for our efforts to win the war on terror. In our all- volunteer military, it is critical to attract and retain professional and dedicated soldiers. In turn, they expect that we will honor our commitments to provide health care and other primary benefits for them and their families.

By ending this unfair policy, we now have an opportunity to show our gratitude to our veterans. If we are to truly honor the sacrifices of our veterans, we need to ensure that those who were injured in defense of our Nation receive these well deserved benefits.

While our Nation is at war, there is no better honor we could bestow upon them than to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I have worked closely with the staff of Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici on an issue with regard to CAFE standards the Senate passed in its version but the House rejected.

I thank Senator Inouye and the other members of the Commerce Committee for their work on a corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standard. As you know, the Senate-passed CAFE bill contained a low- volume manufacturer exemption that would have classified low-volume manufacturers as those that have a U.S. market share of less than 0.4 percent and that sell less than about 64,000 cars--at current sales rates. While current law allows large multiline manufacturers to achieve compliance through averaging across various makes and models-- offsetting the performance vehicles with economy cars--it denies some small independent limited-line niche manufacturers the same opportunity. Small limited-line companies that manufacture only three models produce vehicles having superior fuel economy yet pay millions in CAFE noncompliance fines. Other automobile manufacturers avoid penalties through mergers and acquisitions and the ability to offset sports cars with economy cars.

The law on automotive fuel economy standards does not require each passenger automobile to meet the standard, but instead allows manufacturers to meet the standard through a fleet average, permitting manufacturers to produce vehicles with varying levels of fuel economy. The law, 49 U.S.C. 32902, includes a provision allowing low-volume manufacturers of passenger automobiles to petition for alternative fuel economy standards. Should a petition be granted under section 32902(d), the low-volume manufacturer is required to meet the maximum feasible fuel economy standard that the Secretary of Transportation finds that the manufacturer can attain. In the case of a high-performance vehicle, this requirement can lead to greater fuel economy savings than results if a similar vehicle is merely averaged into a larger fleet. At the time the law was enacted, the threshold for petitioning for alternative standards was set at annual worldwide production of 10,000 passenger automobiles, which at that time made some 12 companies eligible.

Today the structure of the U.S. market for passenger automobiles is considerably different than it was in 1975. In particular, because of consolidation in the automobile industry, only three independent manufacturers designing for niche markets remain in the United States market. Most, but not all, niche manufacturers have been acquired by major manufacturers and so are able to avail themselves of both the vastly greater resources and flexibility of fleet averaging of those major manufacturers. Thus, the few remaining niche manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage in meeting fuel economy standards not only in an absolute sense, but compared to other manufacturers of comparable vehicles.

I believe Congress's original intent in enacting the CAFE standards was not to competitively disadvantage small independent manufacturers. However, the fundamental change in the structure of the passenger vehicle marketplace has in fact disadvantaged the remaining low-volume manufacturers without furthering the CAFE goal of increasing fuel economy. I believe that changes in the marketplace have altered what should constitute a low-volume manufacturer, raising serious questions about the reasonableness of the 10,000 threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards. At the same time, I recognize that the threshold must not be so high as to competitively disadvantage major manufacturers.

In order to preserve the original intent of section 32902 to afford relief to low-volume manufacturers, Senator Chambliss and I proposed and the Senate accepted a provision to set a new threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles by setting the threshold as a percentage of the worldwide market rather than an absolute number. This allows for a threshold that will adapt to changes in the marketplace, unlike the current threshold. This is the same as the language proposed by Senator Smith in 2002 and included in the Kerry-McCain amendment to the then-pending CAFE bill.

The provision the Senate passed set the threshold for eligibility as a low-volume manufacturer above the current 10,000 but equivalent to less than \1/2\ percent of the world-wide market.

It is my understanding that although the Senate voted on and passed this provision, the House asked that it be removed because they were concerned that a manufacturer who is covered by this new provision would no longer pay fines as a result of it. It is my understanding that under the terms of section 813 as drafted, the Secretary of Transportation--through NHTSA, we presume--conducts an investigation into the capabilities of any petitioner for consideration under this provision and decides whether or not to authorize an alternative standard that differs from the established CAFE standard, and if so, by how much. In the case of any manufacturer who petitions for an alternative standard, NHTSA may decide not to authorize a different standard or they could set an alternative standard that could still be unachievable in that model year. In either scenario above, a company would pay penalties for noncompliance and would not be relieved from paying penalties by anything in section 813. Obviously the hope would be that NHTSA would set a standard that could be achieved based on our maximum feasible technological capabilities.

I also understand the provision was removed because the House was concerned that the alternative standard for low-volume manufacturers is an exemption from meeting CAFE standards. Again, it is my understanding that section 813 is not an exemption because the provision is drafted so that it mirrors current law procedurally in that it authorizes the Secretary of Transportation--again, through NHTSA--to prescribe an alternative fuel economy standard if there is a finding that the petitioning manufacturer's ability to meet the standard prescribed by law is not achievable. Again, there is no provision that allows NHTSA to ``exempt'' a manufacturer. As we read it, the alternative standard must be achieved by the manufacturer in order to achieve compliance and not pay a penalty even if the standard exceeds that which the manufacturer claims it can meet. So in short, there is no exemption from CAFE and the standard established by NHTSA could still result in penalties for noncompliance.

It is also my understanding that the House is not on record as having voted on this provision, and that the House has not passed a CAFE standard this Congress.