Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. President, the past month has been marked by several high profile, tragic shootings. Across the country, Americans have been attacked in places once thought safe, by people wielding deadly firearms. There can be little doubt that the plague of gun violence is continuing to permeate our society. At what point will we say act.

Early Sunday morning December 9, a young man entered a Christian missionary center in the Denver suburb of Arvada, carrying an assault rifle and approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Shooting randomly, he gunned down two staff members in their mid-20s and wounded two others. Just over 12 hours later, the same gunman walked into a church 75 miles away in Colorado Springs and killed two sisters, 18 and 16 years-old, and wounded six others, before shooting himself.

Four days earlier, on December 5, a young man entered a busy mall in Omaha, NE, carrying an assault rifle. Spraying bullets at people at both point blank range and from the third-floor balcony, sending holiday shoppers running as dozens of shots echoed throughout the mall. Before he turned the gun on himself, the gunman had killed eight people and wounded five others, two critically.

Of course, these were only the shootings that captured national headlines. Hundreds of others fell to their deaths this past month at the hands of someone with a firearm. This month caps a year that witnessed the worst ever school shooting in the United States, when a student killed 32 classmates and staff members at Virginia Tech University. Each one of these horrific events emphasizes the need for common sense gun legislation. Together they scream out for change. As 2007 draws to a close I once again urge my colleagues to help put an end to these kind of tragedies by renewing the assault weapons ban.

Mr. President, the Sundance Channel recently aired a documentary entitled ``Nimrod Nation.'' This eight-part series explores the world of small-town American life through the lens of the town of Watersmeet, MI, and their local high school basketball team.

Small towns have always been an important part of our country's cultural heritage. The communities and institutions that make up small towns are an essential and enduring aspect of the political, economic and social fabric of our nation. Nearly one quarter of all Americans live in rural areas, approximately the same percentage as live in central cities.

With only 1,400 residents, Watersmeet is a rural town in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The town is surrounded by the Ottawa National Forest and the Cisco Chain of Lakes. It is located in a region with a high concentration of Nordic descendants and Native Americans. In an area with not a single movie theater, the residents turn to, among other things, pastimes such as hunting, fishing, and cheering on their local athletic teams.

Director Brett Morgen traveled to Watersmeet in 2004 to film three commercials for an ESPN promotional campaign. There he discovered the Watersmeet Nimrods basketball team. The nickname came from the Biblical king Nimrod, a mighty hunter, fisherman and outdoorsman. The commercials highlighted the team's unusual name, and they sold close to $550,000 worth of Nimrod-brand merchandise as a result of this publicity. Mr. Morgen later returned to Watersmeet to document the Nimrod's 2005-6 basketball season while creating a series about the rural town.

``Nimrod Nation'' uncovers one of the many diverse cultures we have in Michigan. The residents of Watersmeet have expressed enthusiasm about the series. It explores the making of head cheese, talks with the town's older citizens at a local cafe, and covers the community's passion for the Nimrod basketball team. These events are woven together to create a portrait of what life in the Upper Peninsula is all about.

I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in recognizing the importance of small towns to our country, as well as the congratulating residents of Watersmeet, MI, as their town is showcased in the documentary ``Nimrod Nation.''

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Voinovich, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Smith, and Senator Salazar, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that we should have a goal for the removal of most of our forces in a reasonable time mainly as a way of telling the Iraqi leaders they must accept responsibility for their own future. Our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress. It is not legally binding, but it puts us on record, and it sends a message. It says it is the sense of the Congress that:

The United States Armed Forces in Iraq should transition to

the more limited set of missions laid out by President Bush

in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation--

counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and

supporting Iraqi forces--

And we add--

in addition to the necessary mission of force protection,

with the goal of completing that transition by the end of

2008.

The primary aim of this amendment is to keep the pressure on the Iraqi politicians to do what only they can do: Work out compromises, as they promised to do long ago--to compromise the differences which divide them so as to ensure the currently relatively calm situation in many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, remains calm. Our sense of Congress language is aimed at pressuring the Iraqi politicians to seize the window of opportunity, as General Odierno put it, to avoid a return to the violence that characterized the presurge period.

The New York Times, in a story on December 5, quoted Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi as saying about the present situation in Iraq: ``It is more a cease-fire than a peace.'' Well, we need to make it clear to those Iraqi political leaders that a cease-fire is not good enough. They must take the steps to turn that cease-fire into a real peace.

From all accounts, the surge has already produced some military progress. The problem is that while the surge has, up to this point, achieved some military progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose, as announced by President Bush last January. President Bush said the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi Government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas'' and that ``reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.''

The President also said ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks that it has announced.'' Well, the administration has not done what it said it would do--hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks that it, the Iraqi Government, has announced. Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided.

Despite the breathing space the brave men and women wearing our uniform have provided the Iraqi leaders, despite the breathing room and the breathing space which young men and women putting their lives in harm's way on behalf of this Nation to give the Iraqis an opportunity to create a nation, they have not used that breathing space. And as a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge.

The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been stunning inaction. The Iraqi Parliament has suspended its session until the New Year, thus ensuring that not 1--not 1--of the 18 legislative benchmarks that they committed to meet will be met this year. The President's statement that he will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced is hollow rhetoric. To date, there have been no consequences for Iraqis' failures to meet those benchmarks.

Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is, of course, their decision. The United States cannot make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country and have to decide what is best for themselves. But whether the United States keeps an open-ended commitment or establishes a goal for redeployment of most of our forces is our decision. That is not the Iraqis' decision. They can decide whether to live up to the commitments they made to themselves and to us--solemn commitments, as far as I am concerned, because it involves the lives of American troops. Those solemn commitments have not been kept. We cannot force them to keep them, but we can decide whether we are going to maintain an open-ended commitment of our troops.

Mr. President, how much time do we have?

I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

According to our own State Department, the key threat to our effort in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement. Listen to what the State Department said in its own weekly status report of November 21, 2007. This is our State Department:

Senior military commanders [U.S. commanders] now portray

the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as

the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-

Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed

militias.

Let me read that once again. This is our State Department saying what is the key threat to our forces in Iraq. What they are saying is that it is not the Iranian-backed militias, it is not the Sunni insurgents, it is not the al-Qaida terrorists; the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, according to our State Department, is ``the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government.''

We have to break that intransigence. How can Congress do it? How do we put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? At a minimum, by at least expressing our view that U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more supporting and a less direct role, with a goal--a goal, just a goal--of completing that transition by the end of 2008. The message the Iraqi political leaders need to hear is that Congress has lost patience with them, as have the American people. By their own Prime Minister's acknowledgment, a political solution is the only way to end the conflict, and ending the conflict is in their own hands.

I wish we could legislate a legally binding way forward for U.S. forces in Iraq. We have tried to do that. We have not been able to break the filibuster, to get to 60 votes. But at least expressing the sense of the Congress on this matter is better than silence because silence implies acquiescence in the open-endedness of our presence. It is that open-ended commitment which takes the pressure off the Iraqi political leaders, and Congress needs to act to correct that. Our amendment is a small but important step in that direction.

Fine. That is fine with us. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, and we will come back to you.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Before I yield to the Senator from California, let me respond briefly to my friend from Virginia. There is no inconsistency between voting to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing as a goal, nonbinding, that we complete a transition to a more limited mission, a mission which the President says he wants to transition to by the end of next year and at the same time voting for the McConnell amendment. There will be many Senators voting for the Levin-Reed amendment who are also going to vote for the McConnell amendment. There is no inconsistency whatsoever between sending our troops the funding which has been requested and having a goal for the transition of their mission to something which gets them out of the middle of a civil war. That is the one point I wish to make immediately to my good friend from Virginia.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.

The message is not conflicting at all. There is no conflict between saying we are going to support our troops, we are not going to reduce funding for them, and at the same time have a goal a year hence for when they transition to the more limited mission. There is not the slightest inconsistency. It is not a conflicting message. If we are interested in success in Iraq, there is only one way to achieve it--for the Iraqi politicians to reach agreement on their differences which have continued the conflict. That is not just me saying it. That is our military leaders.

I wish to read this quote because I am not sure people have focused on it. This is our State Department. I ask my colleagues to listen to this very brief quote from our State Department:

Senior military commanders portray the intransigence of

Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing

the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-Qaida terrorists,

Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

Is that a conflicting message from our State Department, when they identify the political leaders of Iraq as being the major threat to our success? They are the major threat to our success. We all know it. Our military leaders have said it is the failure of the political leaders of Iraq to work out their differences, which is the key problem that keeps the battle going on between Iraqis. That is our State Department. Is that a conflicting message? I don't think so.

It is the truth. Most of us recognize it. We are all completely unhappy with the Iraqi political leaders. Most of us, when we go to Iraq, tell them that. The President of the United States has even said it is useful for that message to be delivered. Let us deliver it tonight.

I intend to yield back all that time but 30 seconds. I cannot believe the President of the United States is going to veto a bill providing this additional funding for the troops because the Senate, in a nonbinding resolution, expresses its belief that we ought to have a nonbinding timetable for the reduction of our troops by the end of the year. If the President has said that, I have not seen it. I can't believe he would so try to squelch the Senate from expressing a nonbinding opinion.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Committee, Senator Dorgan, to clarify for me the scope of the budget authority contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act for the Department of Energy's guarantee loans for development of advanced energy technologies. My understanding is that there would be $10 billion in budget authority for the Department to guarantee loans in the broad technology areas of renewable, energy efficiency, manufacturing, electricity transmission and distribution technologies.

I believe there is tremendous potential for new technologies to produce ethanol from cellulosic materials through all phases of development, including pretreatment. An important step toward proving these technologies will be the development of pilot-scale facilities. Is it the chairman's understanding that a range of technologies and pilot-scale demonstration facilities would be eligible for a loan guarantee issued by the Department of Energy using the budget authority included in this Consolidated Appropriations Act?

I am also very interested in ensuring that advanced batteries and battery systems are fully developed and believe that loan guarantees for projects and facilities to develop lithium ion batteries could provide a significant boost for U.S. competitiveness. In the case of battery technologies, we need to develop the manufacturing capability in this country to ensure that these batteries will be produced here. Is it the chairman's understanding that advanced battery technologies would be included in the scope of the budget authority in this bill and would be eligible for a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following named staff members of the Committee on Armed Services be granted the privilege of the floor at all times during consideration of and a vote relating to this conference report.

Madam President, I make the same request for Senators on this side of the aisle. If they wish to speak during this brief period, let us know. We will try to fit in as many as possible.

Madam President, I urge the adoption of this conference report for the Defense Department. Every year since 1961 there has been a Defense authorization bill enacted. This year conferees and staff have worked extraordinarily hard, with bipartisan cooperation, and we are proud to be keeping up our four-and-one-half decades-long tradition with this conference report.

The great men and women of our Armed Forces are making the most difficult sacrifices. They are putting their

lives on the line, they are giving up precious time spent with their loved ones, they are driven by love of country and by the call of duty.

Our priorities on this bill are threefold: Care, readiness, and management. First, care will guarantee our troops have the best health care and support, both on the battlefield and once they return home.

Second, readiness will ensure our Armed Forces succeed, both in ongoing operations and taking on new challenges in future missions.

And, third, management will provide oversight for defense contracts, operations and processes, to ensure efficiency and maximize results.

First, caring for our troops and their families must always be our top priority. Earlier this year, media reports and a joint hearing of the Senate Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committee exposed totally unacceptable conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Further investigation revealed deficiencies in mental health care, in transitioning from DOD to VA care, and in our responsiveness to the needs of our veterans.

This conference report includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which would address all these issues, ensuring our brave men and women receive the best care possible whenever and wherever their health concerns are.

The Wounded Warrior Act brings new focus to the signature injuries of the Iraq war, by establishing and funding comprehensive policies for preventing and treating traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health conditions.

It provides for respite care and medical care for family members who are primary caregivers for seriously injured servicemembers.

It requires the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration to develop fully interoperable electronic health record systems. The act initiates fundamental reform at the Department of Defense and Veterans' Administration disability evaluation system, by requiring use of the VA presumption of sound mental and physical condition when men and women join the service, and it also requires VA standards for awarding disability.

In both cases, that will benefit our men and women. This act requires the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work together to significantly improve the management of medical care, disability evaluations, personnel actions, and the quality of life for servicemembers recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred while performing military duty.

A lot of Senators have been involved in this effort. I simply wish to acknowledge a few. First of all, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Senator Akaka, has been very significant in bringing this matter together, getting it through the Senate and now making this part of a conference report. There are other Members whom I will identify later who have been involved, but for the time being, thanks are owed to many people for this Wounded Warrior Act.

Our report also includes a number of provisions to ensure that our servicemembers and their families are able to maintain a high quality of life. It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniform service personnel, half of a percent more than the President proposed, and an expansion and improvement of education assistance and support for family members. I will insert for the Record at the end of my comments a much more lengthy list with specific details of the improvements in compensation and quality of life for our uniform personnel.

Second, readiness for our ongoing engagements, primarily those in Iraq and Afghanistan, includes providing equipment, training, technology, and the authorities our Armed Forces need to prevail in combat today. For example, our report authorizes over $16 billion for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs, to protect against the threat of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistent with the Department of Defense's amended budget request responding to urgent operational needs in the theater. Readiness also includes continuing to look ahead to ensure that our Armed Forces are appropriately transforming to be ready to meet emergent threats, to address long-term readiness. This authorization bill increases investments in defense science and technology programs for a total authorization of nearly $11 billion, $142 million more than the budget request. It includes authorization for a number of specific additions to our fleets of ships, submarines, aircraft carriers, ground systems, and aircraft. Again, a longer list will be inserted at the end of my statement.

The third priority is management. Sound management and oversight are critical for us to ensure that every dollar spent on national defense is spent wisely and that every initiative carried out by the Department of Defense is done so efficiently and effectively. The conference report establishes a chief management officer in the Department of Defense and in each of the military departments to ensure for the first time that these issues receive the continuous, top-level attention they need and deserve. The conference report would also address a number of specific management challenges that have arisen over the past few years. It will require private security contractors operating on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with Department of Defense regulations on the use of force as well as orders and directives from commanders. It will establish a commission on wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to monitor reconstruction, security, and logistics support contracts and to make recommendations to improve the contracting process. It will also establish a special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, as we already have in place in Iraq.

Further in the area of management, the Department of Defense has lost its institutional capability to manage the hundreds of billions of dollars it spends on goods and services each year. In recent years, we have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the Department, the excessive use of time-and-materials contracts, undefinitized contracts, and other open-ended commitments of DOD funds, and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management functions so necessary to protect the taxpayers' interests. Just last month, the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations reported that systemic failures in the DOD acquisition system have left the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. The conference report includes the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007 which would address these problems with the most sweeping piece of Government acquisition reform legislation in more than a decade. Among other things, it will tighten the rules for DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components and spare parts, to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.

For example, section 816 of the conference report requires the DOD to review systemic deficiencies that lead to cost overruns on major defense acquisition programs, and section 814 of the conference report tightens data requirements applicable to contractors on such programs. Further, it will establish a defense acquisition workforce development fund to ensure that the Department of Defense has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage DOD contracts. It will strengthen statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by providing for the first time a private right of action in Federal court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests. A number of other management provisions will be included in my remarks at the conclusion and made part of the Record.

The conference report identifies all funding provided for programs, projects, and activities that were not requested in the President's budget. For the first time the report identifies the names of Members requesting such funding. This information was made available to the general public in an electronically searchable format on the Armed Services Committee Web site on December 7. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I signed at the conclusion

of the conference certifying compliance with the requirements of rule XLIV be printed in the Record.

A few other comments on some specific provisions. First, the conference report includes a provision that would restore the collective bargaining and appeals rights for Department of Defense employees who are included in the national security personnel system. I am pleased we were able to work out language on a bipartisan basis that enables the Department of Defense to move forward with personnel reform without denying its employees those well-established rights. The ball is now in the Department of Defense's court to prove it can implement a new performance management system in a manner that is transparent and fair and can gain the acceptance of the Department's civilian employees.

Second, the conference report includes a provision to improve and expand the special immigrant visa program and expand priority 2 considerations under the U.S. refugee program to those Iraqis who have assisted our efforts in Iraq and similar consideration for certain highly vulnerable religious minorities in Iraq. I am pleased that the conference report includes this provision.

I make note of one measure that will not be included in the conference report, sadly, and that is the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. This critical legislation would have broadened Federal jurisdiction to hate crimes motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. I am deeply disappointed that the House conferees were unwilling to include this provision in the conference report and unwilling to put it to a vote as part of the conference report in the House of Representatives. This provision has my full backing; 60 of us voted essentially for this bill in a vote before the Senate. I hope our colleagues will support it when we bring it up for a vote at a future time.

Finally, I congratulate Senator McCain on his first conference report as ranking member of the committee. I thank my dear friend Senator Warner for continuing to be such a great partner, when Senator McCain was understandably unavailable. This bill could not have happened without Senator McCain and without Senator Warner. I also take my hat off to Ike Skelton who chaired our conference. His even temper and plain decency helped smooth a number of rough edges. I will include at the end of my comments a list of the staff of the Armed Services Committee who worked so tremendously hard to bring this annual bill to the point where we now, hopefully, will see its adoption, see the benefits for our troops and their families and our Nation.

I also want to add to the names of those who worked so hard on the Wounded Warrior legislation Senator Patty Murray of Washington. She has been a leader in this effort and I pay special tribute to her, along with other Members who have worked so hard on the Wounded Warrior legislation.

The conference report includes improvements in compensation and quality of life for the men and women in uniform, in addition to the 3.5 percent pay raise for uniformed personnel, including: Authorizing payment of combat related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat related disability. Payment is equal to the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation; reducing below age 60 the age at which a member of a reserve component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for every aggregate 90 days' service on duty under certain mobilization authorities; enhancing reserve education assistance benefits, including authorizing servicemembers eligible for education benefits under the Reserve Education Assistance Program to use those benefits for 10 years after separation, allowing separated servicemembers to regain eligibility by rejoining a reserve component; and authorizing eligibility for increased benefits by aggregating 3 years of qualifying service or more; and extending the prohibition on an increase in TRICARE fees for retirees and reservists and increasing funds for the Defense Health Program; requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish a Family Readiness Council and develop a comprehensive policy and plans to improve the support for and coordination of family readiness programs; and amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow certain spouses and children of servicemembers residing under orders in foreign countries to treat their time accompanying the servicemember as residence in the United States for the purpose of satisfying citizenship requirements.

The Walter Reed Hospital investigations made clear that we need to improve the care we provide to our veterans, and especially to our wounded warriors. Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality health care to the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform and are wounded or injured fighting our Nation's wars. This obligation extends from the point of injury, through evacuation from the battlefield, to first-class medical facilities in the United States, and ends only when the wounds are healed. When wounds may continue to impact a veteran for a lifetime, we have an obligation to continue to provide quality care.

In an effort to better meet this obligation, the conference report includes portions of the Senate and House passed legislation to improve services for wounded warriors. This legislation reflects close collaboration between the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs. Some of the Conference Report's provisions would: Require the DOD and VA to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and transition of recovering servicemembers in an outpatient status; expand treatment and research for traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic eye injuries; guarantee combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 days of their request; require the DOD to use the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities in determining servicemember disabilities; increase from 2 to 5 years the period during which recently separated combat veterans may seek care from the VA; require the DOD to use the VA presumption of sound condition in establishing eligibility of servicemembers for disability retirement; and increase leave under the Family Medical Leave Act for caregivers of seriously injured servicemembers from 12 to 26 weeks.

The conference report will ensure that our service men and women are provided with the equipment, training, technology, and authorities they need to prevail in combat, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Specifically, the conference report: Added over $16 billion for all known Service and Special Operations Command requirements for mine- resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles that improve protection for our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in Iraq and Afghanistan; funded over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, JIEDDO, and directed JIEDDO to invest at least $50.0 million in blast injury research and over $150.0 million for the procurement of IED jammers for the Army; and authorized fiscal year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and 189,000, respectively, which is an increase of 13,000 for

the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps.

The conference report also seeks to make sure tomorrow's service men and women are provided with the equipment and technology they need to prevail in future operations. To this end, the conference report promotes the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century, including: Requiring the Secretary of Defense to obligate sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a competitive propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter, JSF, program in order to conduct a competitive propulsion source selection, and adding $196.9 million to the Joint Strike Fighter program in fiscal year 2008 for this effort; authorizing construction for one Army High Speed Vessel and five Navy Battle Force warships, including the first ship of the CVN-21 aircraft carrier class; providing multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarines, and adding $588 million in advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine in 2010; adding $300 million in advance procurement funding for 3 T-AKE class supply ships, and $50 million in advance procurement for a tenth LPD-17 class amphibious ship; adding $2.28 billion for procurement of 8 additional C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft; and adding $51 million to the budget request to provide increased space situational awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a result of the recent Chinese kinetic anti-satellite weapons test.

Devoting modest resources and effort to sound management practices ensures that our defense dollars are well spent. The conferees included several provisions designed to enhance the management of the DOD. Specifically, these provisions would: Provide that the Deputy Secretary of Defense is the Chief Management Officer of the DOD, and establish a full-time position of Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the rank of Under Secretary, to ensure continuous top-level attention to the management problems of the Department; strengthen oversight of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan by establishing a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, modeled after the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; repeal the authority of the DOD to establish a new labor relations system and restore collective bargaining and appeals rights; and allow the Department to continue efforts to develop and implement a new pay for performance system, but only if the system is implemented in a manner that is consistent with existing labor relations requirements; tighten the rules for competition between Federal employees and private contractors, to ensure that Federal employees are given fair consideration for work to be performed for the Department of Defense.

The conferees also included the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007 in the conference report. These provisions would improve the management and oversight of the DOD acquisition programs, and, specifically, would: Require the private security contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with DOD regulations and rules on the use of force, as well as orders and directives from combatant commanders regarding force protection, security, health, safety, and interaction with local nationals; establish a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes could be improved in the future; establish a defense acquisition workforce development fund to provide a minimum of $300 million in fiscal year 2008, and increasing amounts thereafter, to ensure that the DOD has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage the DOD's contracts; strengthen statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse on DOD contracts by providing, for the first time, a private right of action in Federal court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests; and tighten the rules for DOD acquisition of major weapon systems and subsystems, components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.

The conference report also includes a provision that would build new flexibility into specialty metals requirements to ensure that the DOD can acquire the weapon systems needed by our men and women in uniform. In particular, the provision contains four new exceptions to the specialty metals requirements: a new exemption for commercial, off-the- shelf items; a new de minimis exception for items that contain relatively small amounts, less than 2 percent by weight, of non- compliant material; a new national security exception for items that are needed by our warfighters; and a new ``market basket'' exception for dual-use items. The exceptions for commercial, off-the-shelf items and de minimis amounts of non-compliant material are particularly important, because they apply to purchases by the Department and by defense contractors and subcontractors at any tier, regardless of whether the items acquired are systems, subsystems, assemblies, subassemblies, or components. Because commercial items such as engines and generators are built almost exclusively out of commercial, off-the- shelf components, and any military-unique components are likely to constitute less than 2 percent of the specialty metals included in the final product, they too can now be purchased by DOD and its contractors without the cumbersome need for a waiver.

In addition, the provision would eliminate the Anti-Deficiency Act as an enforcement mechanism for specialty metals requirements, ensuring that noncompliance can now be treated as a routine contract violation, subject to appropriate contractual penalties, and not as a potential criminal offense that precludes the acceptance of a product. Taken together, these changes should reduce the inordinate amount of time and effort that the Department has had to spend over the last 2 years trying to enforce compliance down to the component level on major weapon systems.

The conference report also included a number of other noteworthy provisions, including: Requiring a report on Pakistan's efforts to eliminate safe havens for violent extremists on its territory and to prevent cross border incursions by those extremists into Afghanistan; renewing authority for the Special Operations Command to provide support to foreign forces, groups or individuals who are supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by U.S. special operations forces; and expanding the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program and creating a priority 2 refugee category for those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the United States and for certain highly vulnerable Iraqi religious minorities.

In the area of nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction, the conference report: authorized an increase of $230 million to the amount requested for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs; authorized an increase of $80 million for the DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Program; and expanded the CTR program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union and adopted provisions that would repeal all of the required annual certifications.

The conference report also authorized $9.8 billion for ballistic missile defense, a net reduction of $597 million below the budget request. The conference continued to focus on effective near term capabilities against existing short and medium range threats by authorizing an additional $120 million for such systems. Further, the conferees authorized provisions to improve the budgeting, acquisition, and oversight of missile defense programs, and to limit the use of funds for construction and deployment activities for the proposed European missile defense deployment until the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic give final approval of any bilateral deployment agreements negotiated with the United States, and Congress receives an independent assessment of options for missile defense in Europe.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of staff members of the Armed Services Committee to which I earlier referred.

Madam President, before I yield time to Senator Murray, let me all too briefly thank my friend from Virginia. I treasure this relationship. It has been extraordinarily meaningful to me and important to me and our wives. We still have a year and a few months to go and we will make fullest use of all that time. In the meantime, let me extend my thanks to him and my appreciation for the friendship and support he has always provided, not just to me but to every Member of the Senate.

Indeed, they have.

I thank the Senator for those comments, and I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

As does the majority leader. If I could just introduce this thought: We have three additional Members, we believe, who wish to speak: Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator McCaskill. Those are the ones we have so far on this side.

I am sorry. I was distracted.

I thank my friend from Virginia, but let me also thank the Senator from Oklahoma. The subject of competition is one which many of us have put in decades of effort on. As a matter of fact, I remember when Senator Bill Cohen of Maine was sitting a few desks from where you are now standing, a decade or so ago. On a bipartisan basis at that time we adopted the Competition In Contracting Act and did a lot of good over time. Gradually, over time, I think there has been some fraying in it.

The Senator points out some very significant issues. We are always happy to work with him on issues. We don't agree with everything he says, but on much of what he says and on his point, his major point, we do agree, in terms of the critical importance of competition. There are some provisions in this bill which the Senator from Oklahoma inspired-- many of them. A number of those come from that passion of his to improve competition. It is in the section on acquisition reform. We thank him for his effort in that regard. I also thank him for his very personal comments about me.

We very much appreciate that courtesy, as always.

I want to thank my friends from Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon for their support. As I have said before, the United States has a special responsibility to assist those individuals fleeing Iraq and particularly to those individuals who assisted the United States. In the case of this legislation, it is the intent of the conferees to provide Iraqi SIVs the full array of benefits traditionally provided to refugees as described by my friend from Maryland.

My friend from Maryland is correct: despite provision of benefits, these SIVs, due to their special status, are not to be counted against immigrant or refugee caps. Does my friend from Massachusetts concur?

Madam President, I yield--what do I have, 9 minutes left? I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his passion on this issue, this brain injury problem, which is bedeviling us. We have now incorporated the original screening so we know where people are who come into the service. This bill has his name on it as a cosponsor and has his spirit and effort incorporated in it. That is a most important thing. We thank him.

Senator Byrd may want to speak.

Mr. President, Senator McCaskill will ask to be recognized. How many minutes do we have?

Without even asking, I know Senator Warner would be happy to yield a minute or two of his remaining time if she needs it.

I thank Senator McCaskill. She has been intrepid on so many issues, including the ones we talked about on mental health. She brings a background to the committee which is unique in terms of oversight. We are grateful she is on our team.

Mr. President, we will close with thanking all of the members of the committee for their work. On our side, we have a couple of old lions, Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, and our wonderful freshmen, Senators McCaskill and Webb, who led the way to give us a Commission on Contracting. All of the members made major contributions.

Since I am sitting in front of Senator Byrd, and I have 3 seconds left, I pay my personal respects to the longest serving member of our committee as well as, obviously, the senior Member of the Senate. I wanted to look that wonderful Senator in the eye and express the gratitude of this body and of our committee for what he contributes to both the Senate and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, there is no similar request by this Senator to reunite Ohio and Michigan, by the way.

I also thank Senator Jack Reed, who has meant so much to the Committee and to me personally over the years.

Mr. President, before the Senator is recognized, I wish to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, obviously for the comments he made about me, which were extremely meaningful to me and will be memorable to

my family, although they will discount it hopefully somewhat. I also thank him for his leadership in this body and for the way he has fought for so many causes, not just for our veterans but our troops. Year after year, he is on this floor improving the situation for those who have been badly wounded, retired, and disabled. Without that effort, the progress we have made in the last few years simply could not have happened. I thank him.

I am glad Senator Webb was able to get to the floor. I have already thanked him for his work on the Commission on which he and Senator McCaskill led an effort, a Commission on contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are so many other areas in which he is involved. I am delighted he was able to get to the floor for a few minutes.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I support the passage of the 2007 farm bill, which includes many important programs that benefit Michigan and the Nation as a whole. Agriculture is Michigan's second largest industry, and few States have such a diversity of agricultural crops. As leading producers of traditional crops, such as corn, wheat and soybeans, as well as specialty crops, such as apples, asparagus, beans, blueberries and cherries, Michigan's farmers have a wide variety of needs, and I am pleased that this farm bill contains a range of measures that will benefit farmers throughout the State.

For too long, the farm bill has not included proper support for the specialty crops that are such a vital part of Michigan's agricultural economy. I am pleased that this bill will provide significantly more assistance to specialty crop growers than we have seen in the past, while protecting both specialty crop growers and traditional farmers by providing disaster assistance and revenue protections in the event of catastrophic crop losses. With measures such as specialty crop block grants, increased incentives for organic farming, funding for specialty crops research initiatives, and technical assistance programs, the farm bill will provide much needed support for the specialty crop community throughout Michigan.

I was pleased that the Senate supported the inclusion in this bill of funding for the Asparagus Market Loss Program. This program will provide transitional assistance to asparagus farmers that suffered substantial market losses due to the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA. In addition, this bill includes funding for the Market Access Program, which will help domestic farmers export their goods to foreign markets, thus helping to alleviate our international trade deficit.

The farm bill includes strong measures to improve conservation efforts on American farms. These programs, which are aimed at both working lands and lands taken out of production, help protect and improve soil quality, prevent erosion, benefit water quality, and preserve and restore habitats. This legislation will expand the amount of land that will benefit from conservation assistance by increasing the Comprehensive Stewardship Program by millions of acres, and reauthorizing the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

This bill will strengthen nutrition programs by providing additional funding to our Nation's critical food programs over the next 5 years. Nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, provide assistance to children, low-income working families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. It is of vital importance that we continue these food benefits for our Nation's least fortunate and most vulnerable.

I am pleased that this bill also includes tax incentives that will encourage continued development of biofuels and provisions to spur the increased production of renewable fuels. Cellulosic ethanol, in particular, offers great potential for reducing oil consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the collective effect of the provisions in the farm bill, and the

recently passed Energy bill will provide an additional and necessary boost to production of these fuels.

This bill passed by the Senate today includes modest reforms to our current producer protection programs. It eliminates some loopholes that have allowed producers to circumvent existing payment limits and lowers the adjusted gross income, AGI, limit for commodity programs from the current level of $2.5 million to $1 million in 2009 and $750,000 for 2010 and beyond. However, these reforms do not go far enough. During debate on the farm bill, I supported a number of amendments that would have provided additional reforms to our agricultural subsidy programs and would have redirected this funding to vital nutrition and conservation programs. Unfortunately, none of these reforms were adopted. I am hopeful that we can work to enact these reforms when the Senate next considers farm legislation.

This farm bill is a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation which includes many programs that are beneficial to Michigan's communities. While this bill is not perfect, I believe the combination of additional assistance for specialty crops, enhanced conservation spending, and the increased nutrition funding included in this bill warrants support. I am pleased the Senate was able to work in a bipartisan manner to pass a strong farm bill to benefit our Nation's farmers and rural communities.

Mr. President, I support this bill and, in particular, the provisions that require the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel economy standards for vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that these new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

I believe that we have taken historic steps in this legislation by putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel economy standards that will reduce our Nation's fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In this legislation, the Senate and House have come together and established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards and have directed NHTSA to implement that through new regulations. In this legislation, the Congress has agreed that the appropriate level of fuel economy to reach is 35 miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 miles per gallon in 10 years.

But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to plan on the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must resolve now with the sponsors of this legislation in the Senate any ambiguity that could arise in the future when EPA issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act so that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in mind, I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator Feinstein's understanding and interpretation of what the Congress is doing in this legislation and to clarify their agreement that we want all Federal regulations in this area to be consistent. We do not want to enact this legislation today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.

The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and to delegate that authority, as the agency deems appropriate, to the State of California. This authority was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is not our purpose today to attempt to change that authority or to undercut

the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to make clear that it is Congressional intent in this bill that, with respect to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, any future regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be consistent with the Department of Transportation's new fuel economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide level by 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the intent of this language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles to be consistent with the direction of Congress in this 35 miles per gallon in 2020 legislation and consistent with regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?

I thank the Senator for her clarification of her intent.

Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my understanding of the intent of this bill that any regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent with the direction of Congress in this legislation and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?

I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for his clarification.

agency management

Mr. President, I will vote for Senate passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. I voted earlier to invoke cloture and to move forward with the bill after receiving assurances that my understanding of congressional intent relative to the fuel economy provisions is correct. I anticipate that the bill will now be accepted by the House of Representatives.

I regret that it was necessary to drop the energy tax provisions. I believe it is particularly unfortunate that the energy tax provisions were dropped since many of these are important to continued development of biofuels and to development and commercialization of many advanced and renewable technologies. Included in these provisions were tax incentives for plug-in hybrids which offer potential for significant reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that we will have another chance to enact these very important provisions.

With regard to the renewable electricity mandate, I regret that we were unable to come up with a formula for a renewable electricity mandate that could have garnered widespread support. I believe that a renewable electricity mandate is important to provide incentives for development of renewable resources, which could lead to the creation of numerous high-skill jobs and increase our country's energy security and independence. However, I also believe that a renewable energy mandate must be done in a way that does not have economically detrimental effects.

I also regret that this bill does not include more positive incentives for development of advanced vehicle technologies. There are a number of very important provisions included in the bill--including authorizations for grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees for advanced vehicle technologies and for advanced batteries and battery systems--that will be very helpful but I regret that the bill does not include tax incentives for retooling of manufacturing facilities to produce alternative technology vehicles and components. that would have provided an immediate economic benefit to the auto manufacturers and suppliers who will bear the burden of meeting the regulatory requirements of this legislation.

The fuel economy provisions of H.R. 6 as passed by the House are a significant improvement over what the Senate passed in June 2007 and that I opposed vigorously. The bill the Senate passed in June would have had a detrimental effect on both U.S. manufacturing and U.S. workers by requiring a combined car-truck standard and by not providing adequate flexibility for meeting the standards.

During the course of deliberations between the Senate and House, some concessions were obtained on some of the most important issues, including requiring separate car and truck standards, preserving domestic jobs with an antibacksliding provision, and extending existing fuel credits until 2014 to provide flexibility to our domestic manufacturers to make it more practically possible for them to reach the ambitious level of 35 mpg by 2020. Of great significance, the House of Representatives was able to maintain a key reform that we were able to obtain during Senate consideration of the bill to set fuel economy standards based upon vehicle attributes. By setting standards based on vehicle attributes, such as size or weight, rather than having a fleet- wide average for each company, we will end the many years of discriminatory impacts on domestic manufacturers imposed by the existing CAFE system.

Because it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to plan on the 35 mpg standard in 2020, it was important to remove any ambiguity that could arise in the future if EPA issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act. Earlier today, I entered into a colloquy with Senator Inouye, chairman of the Commerce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, and Senator Feinstein, the primary sponsor and author of the 35 mpg in 2020 legislation, confirming our mutual understanding and interpretation of what the Congress is doing in this legislation and to make clear our mutual understanding that the standard with which all Federal regulations need to be consistent is the 35 m.p.g. in 2020 standard in this bill. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It is extremely important that we make clear that it is congressional intent in this bill that any future regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent with the Department of Transportation's new fuel economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide level by 35 mpg by 2020.

Logic dictates that we read the law this way--certainly Congress would not knowingly enact new fuel economy standards that could be undercut in the future by other federal agencies adopting conflicting regulations. I was assured this morning by both Senator Inouye and Senator Feinstein that it is indeed the intent of the law they wrote that EPA regulations be consistent with NHTSA. With that understanding, I am supporting this legislation today.

Mr. President, for the past five years, I have been working with my colleagues to close the Enron loophole that, since 2000, has exempted electronic energy markets for large traders from government oversight. This loophole opened the door to price manipulation and excessive speculation, and American consumers have been paying the price ever since with sky-high prices for crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, propane, and other energy commodities vital to a functioning U.S.

economy. That is why I am pleased to stand before the Senate today in support of bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Senator Feinstein, myself, Senator Snowe and others, that will close the Enron loophole and put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. energy markets in an effort to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation.

I would like to thank a number of my colleagues for not only making this bipartisan legislation possible, but also agreeing to include it in the farm bill today. Senator Harkin, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, played a key role in getting us together and encouraging us to resolve our differences. Senator Chambliss, the committee's ranking republican, agreed to address the problems we identified and helped work through our differences. Senator Feinstein of California provided unending determination needed to get this problem solved. There are many more who played a critical role in this legislation as well, including Senator Bingaman, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan who cosponsored our original bill, S. 2058, the Close the Enron Loophole Act, and Senator Crapo who helped us produce a bipartisan product.

I thank not only the Senators, but also their staffs who put in many hours on this legislation, provided invaluable expertise, and repeatedly came up with creative solutions to tough problems. I would like to thank in particular Dan Berkovitz of my subcommittee staff who has lived with this issue for the last 5 years and devoted so much time, work, and expertise to it.

A stable and affordable supply of energy is, of course, vital to the national and economic security of the United States. We need energy to heat and cool our homes and offices, to generate electricity for lighting, manufacturing, and vital services, and to power our transportation sector--automobiles, trucks, boats, and airplanes.

Over 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. About 50 percent is from oil and natural gas. The U.S. consumes around 20 million barrels of crude oil each day, over half of which is imported. About 90 percent of this oil is refined into products such as gasoline, home heating oil, jet fuel, and diesel fuel.

The crude oil market is the largest commodity market in the world, and hundreds of millions of barrels are traded daily in the various crude oil futures, over-the-counter, and spot markets. The world's leading exchanges for crude oil futures contracts are the New York Mercantile Exchange--NYMEX--and the Intercontinental Exchange, known as ICE Futures in London.

Natural gas heats the majority of American homes, is used to harvest crops, powers 20 percent of our electrical plants, and plays a critical role in many industries, including manufacturers of fertilizers, paints, medicines, and chemicals. It is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and we produce most of it ourselves with only 15 percent being imported, primarily from Canada. In 2005 alone, U.S. consumers and businesses spent about $200 billion on natural gas.

Today, only part of the natural gas futures market is regulated. Natural gas produced in the United States is traded on NYMEX and on an unregulated ICE electronic trading platform headquartered in Atlanta, GA. The price of natural gas in both the futures market and in the spot or physical market depends on the prices on both of these U.S. exchanges.

The ``Enron loophole'' is a provision that was inserted at the last minute, without opportunity for debate, into commodity legislation that was attached to an omnibus appropriations bill and passed by Congress in late December 2000, in the waning hours of the 106th Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. government oversight the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders. The loophole has helped foster the explosive growth of trading on unregulated electronic energy exchanges. It has also rendered U.S. energy markets more vulnerable to price manipulation and excessive speculation, with resulting price distortions.

Since 2001, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy commodity markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation. Beginning in 2002, we have held 6 days of hearings and issued 4 reports on issues related to inflated energy prices.

The subcommittee first documented some of the weaknesses in U.S. crude oil markets in a 2003 staff report I released which found that crude oil prices were

Affected by trading not only on regulated exchanges like the

NYMEX, but also on unregulated ``over-the-counter'' (OTC)

markets which have become major trading centers for energy

contracts and derivatives. The lack of information on prices

and large positions in these OTC markets makes it difficult

in many instances, if not impossible in practice, to

determine whether traders have manipulated crude oil prices.

In June 2006, the subcommittee issued a staff report entitled, ``The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put the Cop Back on the Beat.'' This bipartisan staff report analyzed the extent to which the increasing amount of financial speculation in energy markets had contributed to the steep rise in energy prices over the past few years. The report concluded that: ``[s]peculation has contributed to rising U.S. energy prices,'' and endorsed the estimate of various analysts that the influx of speculative investments into crude oil futures accounted for approximately $20 of the then- prevailing crude oil price of approximately $70 per barrel.

The 2006 report recommended that the CFTC be provided with the same authority to regulate and monitor electronic energy exchanges, such as ICE, as it has with respect to the fully regulated futures markets, such as NYMEX, to ensure that excessive speculation in the energy markets did not adversely effect the availability and affordability of vital energy commodities through unwarranted price increases.

In June 2007, the subcommittee released another bipartisan report-- ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth had dominated the U.S. natural gas market during the spring and summer of 2006, and Amaranth's large- scale trading significantly distorted natural gas prices from their fundamental values based on supply and demand.

The report concluded that the current regulatory system was unable to prevent these distortions because much of Amaranth's trading took place on an unregulated electronic market and recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation.

The report describes in detail how Amaranth used the major unregulated electronic market, ICE, to amass huge positions in natural gas contracts, outside regulatory scrutiny, and beyond any regulatory authority. During the spring and summer of 2006, Amaranth held by far the largest positions of any trader in the natural gas market. According to traders interviewed by the subcommittee, during this period natural gas prices for the following winter were ``clearly out of whack,'' at ``ridiculous levels,'' and unrelated to supply and demand. At the subcommittee's hearing in June of this year, natural gas purchasers, such as the American Public Gas Association and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, explained how these price distortions increased the cost of hedging for natural gas consumers, which ultimately led to increased costs for American industries and households. The Municipal Gas Authority of Georgia calculated that Amaranth's excesses increased the cost of their winter gas purchases by $18 million. Also at the hearing the New England Fuel Institute and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America made clear how rampant speculation in energy trading harms the smaller businesses that trade in energy commodities.

Finally, when Amaranth's positions on the regulated futures market, NYMEX, became so large that NYMEX directed Amaranth to reduce the size of its positions on NYMEX, Amaranth simply switched those positions to ICE, an unregulated market that is beyond the reach of the CFTC. In other words, in response to NYMEX's order, Amaranth did not reduce its size; it merely moved it from a regulated market to an unregulated market.

This regulatory system makes no sense. It is as if a cop on the beat tells a liquor store owner that he must obey the law and stop selling liquor to minors, yet the store owner is allowed to move his store across the street and

sell to whomever he wants because the cop has no jurisdiction on the other side of the street and none of the same laws apply. The Amaranth case history shows it is clearly time to put the cop on the beat in all of our energy exchanges.

At the subcommittee's 2007 hearings, both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law to eliminate the current exemption from regulation for electronic energy markets, in order to reduce the potential for manipulation and excessive speculation. Consumers and users of natural gas and other energy commodities--the American Public Gas Association, the New England Fuel Institute, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America--also testified in favor of closing the Enron loophole. That testimony helped galvanize the current effort to produce legislation in this area.

Just last week, my subcommittee teamed up with Senator Dorgan's Subcommittee on Energy to hold still another hearing examining how excessive speculation is continuing to add to crude oil prices, harming consumers and the American economy as a whole. During that hearing, Senators from both sides of the aisle expressed the need to develop new tools to address this problem.

The legislation being added to the farm bill today will do just that. It will help fix a number of the problems identified in the subcommittee's hearings and reports. Most importantly, it will put an end to the Enron-inspired exemption from government oversight now provided to electronic energy trading markets set up for large traders. By ending that exemption, this legislation will restore the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission--CFTC--to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation.

The legislation would do more than require CFTC oversight; it would also require electronic exchanges, for the first time, to begin policing their own trading operations and become self-regulatory organizations in the same manner as futures exchanges like NYMEX. Specifically, the legislation would establish 5 ``core principles'' to which electronic exchanges must adhere, each of which parallels core principles already applicable to other CFTC-regulated exchanges and clearing facilities. Implementing these core principles would require an electronic exchange to monitor the trading of contracts which the CFTC has determined affect energy prices, ensure these contracts are not susceptible to manipulation, require traders to supply information about these contracts when necessary, supply large trader reports to the CFTC related to these contracts, and publish daily trading data on the price, trading volume, opening and closing ranges, and open interest for these contracts.

In addition, the electronic exchanges would have to establish position limits and accountability levels for individual traders buying or selling these contracts in order to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. Electronic exchanges are intended to implement these position limits and accountability levels in the same way as futures exchanges like NYMEX. Moreover, it is intended that the CFTC will take steps to ensure that the position limits and accountability levels on all exchanges are comparable to prevent traders from playing one exchange off another.

In implementing these core principles, electronic exchanges are given the same flexibility accorded to other CFTC regulated entities, subject to CFTC approval. In addition, the legislation states explicitly that, when implementing the requirements for position limits, accountability levels, and emergency authority to require reductions of positions, the electronic exchanges are allowed to take into account differences between trades which are cleared and not cleared, and the CFTC would police implementation of those core principles in an appropriate manner recognizing those differences.

Although the legislation provides an electronic trading facility with flexibility to implement the core principles, in the same manner as futures exchanges have with respect to the core principles applicable to them, and the flexibility to take into account the differences between cleared and uncleared trades in certain circumstances, in all instances the CFTC has the ultimate responsibility and authority to interpret the core principles, establish rules or guidance as to how they should be applied, and determine whether a facility or exchange is complying with the core principles.

The legislation would also require electronic exchanges to establish procedures to prevent conflicts of interest and anti-trust violations in their operations. These provisions parallel core principles already applicable to other CFTC-regulated exchanges and clearing facilities and are intended to function in a similar manner. These provisions are not restricted to trades involving contracts that affect energy prices, but apply to the entire exchange to ensure it operates in a fair manner.

In addition to requiring electronic exchanges to become self- regulatory organizations, the legislation would require the CFTC to oversee these exchanges in the same general way that it currently oversees futures exchanges like NYMEX. The legislation also, however, assigns the CFTC a unique responsibility not present in its oversight of other types of exchanges and clearing facilities. The legislation would require the CFTC to review the contracts on each electronic exchange to identify those which ``perform a significant price discovery function'' or, in other words, have a significant effect on energy prices. The CFTC would make this determination by looking at such factors as whether the electronic exchange's contract is explicitly linked to a contract used on a futures exchange; whether the electronic exchange's contract price is used by traders to set prices in other contracts; whether traders take positions in the contract and use those positions to arbitrage prices in other energy markets; and whether the contract is traded in sufficient volume to affect market prices. The CFTC can also look at other factors to determine if a contract is affecting energy prices. Contracts designated by the CFTC as performing a significant price discovery function are those that would be policed by both the exchange and the CFTC.

The legislation directs the CFTC to conduct a rulemaking to implement this requirement. The legislation also states clearly that a CFTC determination that a contract performs a significant price discovery function is a determination that is within the Commission's discretion; this determination is not intended to be subject to formal challenge through administrative proceedings. The legislation would also require the CFTC to review the contracts at an electronic exchange on at least an annual basis to determine which perform significant price discovery functions. This review is not intended to require the CFTC to conduct an exhaustive examination of every contract traded on an electronic exchange, but instead to concentrate on those contracts that are most likely to meet the criteria for performing a significant price discovery function. The legislation also directs the electronic exchange to bring to the CFTC's attention any contract which it believes is affecting energy prices.

To enable the CFTC to conduct oversight of its operations, in particular to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation, electronic exchanges are required to file large trader reports with the CFTC for trades involving contracts that perform a significant price discovery function. These are the same large trader reports already filed by other CFTC-regulated exchanges and clearing facilities. In addition, electronic exchanges found to be trading contracts that perform a significant price discovery function are treated as a ``registered entity'' under the Commodity Exchange Act. This designation ensures that the CFTC has the same enforcement authority over electronic exchanges as it has with respect to other exchanges and clearing facilities to ensure compliance with its regulatory and statutory requirements.

One last issue. Another provision in the legislation states that its provisions are not intended to limit or affect the jurisdiction of the CFTC or any other agency involved with protecting our markets from price manipulation and excessive speculation. A legal battle is going on in the courts right now over enforcement actions by the CFTC

and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accusing Amaranth of manipulating or attempting to manipulate natural gas prices. This legislation is not intended to affect that court battle in any way. We are all waiting to see how it plays out and how the courts will interpret the law. This legislation is intended to play an absolutely neutral role in those enforcement actions, and should not be interpreted as changing the status quo in any way.

The provisions I have just discussed are the product of lengthy negotiations and compromises over the best way to close the Enron loophole. They seek to provide stronger government oversight of U.S. energy markets, while preserving the legitimate trading operations of electronic exchanges like ICE. Senator Feinstein and I have introduced a number of bills over the years to tackle this problem, each of which took a somewhat different approach to strike the right balance. My latest effort, introduced a few months ago with Senator Dorgan and others, was S. 2058, the Close the Enron Loophole Act. While that bill is more comprehensive than the legislation being added to the farm bill today, the combined legislation before us now preserves our bill's intent and ensures that both the exchanges and the CFTC can enforce prohibitions against price manipulation and excessive speculation. That, to me, is the most important aspect of the legislation and why I support it today.

The legislation reflects input from the CFTC, industry, consumer groups, and a wide range of Senators. Some compromises were made, but again, those compromises did not weaken the ability of the CFTC to police out energy markets--in fact, if this legislation is enacted into law, the CFTC will be in a stronger position since 2000 to protect our markets from trading abuses.

The House is working on similar legislation, so I am hopeful that we can get something enacted into law as part of the farm bill early next year. I will be working to ensure that the enforcement provisions we have worked so hard to include in this legislation are preserved.

In addition to these provisions closing the Enron loophole, the farm bill will include a host of other provisions to reauthorize and strengthen the Commodity Exchange Act. Those provisions include stronger civil and criminal penalties for manipulation, better enforcement authority for currency exchange trading abuses, among others, all of which I support. I thank my colleagues for including them in the farm bill as well.

Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I thank my colleagues, industry, consumers and others for their good-faith suggestions to improve the legislation that is now before the Senate. Recent cases have shown that market abuses and failures did not stop with the fall of Enron. They are still with us. We cannot afford to let the current situation continue, allowing energy traders to use unregulated markets to avoid regulated markets. It is time to put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. energy markets. The stakes for our energy security and for competition in the market place are too high to do otherwise.

Intent of the Commodity Exchange Act

The Senator from New Mexico raises an interesting and important question, on which I have conferred with the CFTC. In addition to the savings clause in section 13203(c)(2) that preserves FERC's jurisdiction under its statutes as a threshold matter, I believe that FERC's jurisdiction over these transactions would, in any event, be preserved. It is my view that the kinds of cash transactions that you cite would not be captured within the amendment's ``significant price discovery contract'' test. The test is reserved for those transactions conducted ``in reliance'' on the exemption

in paragraph 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act. Because the CEA does not apply to cash transactions for purposes of regulation, these transactions cannot, by definition, be conducted ``in reliance'' on this exemption. As such, FERC's authority in this area is preserved on all accounts.

For many of the same reasons I have cited in relation to natural gas markets, I believe--and it is certainly my intention, as one of the amendment's authors--that FERC's authority over RTOs would be unaffected. To my knowledge, no RTO operates pursuant to the exemption in paragraph 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act. Moreover, the savings clause in section 13203(c)(2) makes abundantly clear that FERC's existing authorities are preserved.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Dr. Walter Bryzik as he retires after 40 years of service to the men and women of our Armed Forces and our Nation. Since 1968, Dr. Bryzik has held a variety of positions at the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, TARDEC, in Warren, MI, and is retiring early next year as its chief scientist. His career is one to be admired and he will be surely missed

by all of us who are fortunate enough to have worked closely with him.

As he rose to become the Army's senior technical leader in ground system technology, Dr. Bryzik established a legacy of accomplishment that will be difficult to equal. Ten years ago, he was promoted to the highest scientific professional rank in the Army. In 2004, he was presented with the Distinguished Presidential Rank Award for his leadership and technical contributions to the U.S. Government.

Dr. Bryzik's generation of scientists and engineers, and the technologies and systems they developed, are the forgotten part of America's success in winning the Cold War. I often worry that we aren't doing enough to replace this generation of innovators--especially with the quality of individuals like Dr. Bryzik. However, Dr. Bryzik is making an important contribution to this effort. Outside of TARDEC, he has served on the faculty of Wayne State University as a professor in the Department of Engineering, another example of his commitment to the development of the next generation of our Nation's engineers and to the service of his community.

However, most important among his accomplishments are the technologies that Dr. Bryzik helped develop and transition to soldiers in the field. His efforts have helped give our service men and women the most cutting-edge, effective technology possible, and that has been a critical advantage for our Armed Forces as they engage our adversaries around the world. Most importantly, the technological advancements that Dr. Bryzik has overseen have saved lives.

Throughout his career, Dr. Bryzik has been an invaluable resource to me and my staff. In addition to his insight and expert counsel, he has a remarkable ability to convert highly technical subjects into language that the rest of us can understand! I am told he has mentored at least five generations of my staff and helped them navigate the complexities of the work done at TARDEC and throughout the Army.

I am sure my colleagues will join me in congratulating Dr. Bryzik on an extraordinary career and thanking him for his decades of service to our Nation, the Army and TARDEC.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th birthday of my friend Bruno Nowicki, of Warren, MI.

Bruno has led a remarkable life. He was born in Sosnowiec, Poland, immigrating to the United States as a young man. His love for his native Poland is exceeded only by his love for Michigan and the United States of America. He launched a career as a journalist and writer in Pittsburgh and Chicago before moving to Detroit where he became a small businessman and raised a family. I had the privilege of appointing Bruno's granddaughter, Genevieve Nowicki, to serve as a Senate page in 1991.

Bruno is an expert chess player. He once played against Bobby Fischer, and chess is an activity that he continues to enjoy today. Years ago, Bruno urged me to examine the educational benefits of chess. We found that chess is proven to help students develop high order thinking skills, discipline and increased math skills. The Goals 2000: Education America Act includes language that Bruno Nowicki inspired, and that I pushed for in the Senate, that allows Federal funds for low- achieving schools to be used for chess instruction as an enrichment program. This bill has helped bring chess into schools across America.

In Michigan, Bruno has been instrumental in acquiring and placing sculptures that pay tribute to his Polish heritage. The sculptures appear across the State, from the southeast, where he lives, to northern Michigan, serving as a reminder of the rich Polish heritage of so many people in Michigan and of Poland's significant contributions to America's history and culture. A statue of Astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus sits in the Detroit Public Library. A sculpture of Frederic Chopin is placed in Interlochen, home to a world-renowned fine arts school. And a bust of Joseph Conrad graces the Hamtramck Public Library.

Conrad wrote: ``Each blade of grass has its spot on earth whence it draws its life, its strength; and so is man rooted to the land from which he draws his faith together with his life.'' These words are certainly apt for Bruno. In his 100 years, Bruno has been rooted in both his Polish homeland and his American home in Michigan, drawing life and strength from each and making Michigan the better for it.

The Polish birthday song ``Sto Lat'' includes the refrain ``I hope you live one hundred years.'' Bruno was never quite willing to settle for only 100 years. Now, as he enters his second century, I wish Bruno many more years of happiness, and I offer my congratulations and my thanks for his friendship and his contributions to his beloved America.

Mr. President, I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act, because I believe we need to move forward to address our Nation's continued dependence on imported oil, increase our energy independence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The House amendment to H.R. 6 is a significant improvement over the bill the Senate passed in June. H.R. 6 will require new vehicle fuel economy standards that will be challenging for auto manufacturers. Reaching a fuel economy level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is ambitious, but unlike the Senate passed bill, the provisions of this amendment provide greater flexibility and predictability for auto manufacturers in meeting those standards. The CAFE provisions of this amendment are not perfect, and I believe that additional improvements could be made. But this amendment includes positive language on some important issues to the auto manufacturers and their workers by requiring separate car and truck standards, preserving domestic jobs with an antibacksliding provision, and extending flexible fuel credits until 2014. Significantly, this amendment also maintains a key reform obtained during Senate consideration of the bill. By setting standards based on vehicle size rather than having a fleetwide average for each company, we will end the many years of discriminatory impacts on domestic manufacturers imposed by the existing CAFE system.

Mr. President, it is my distinct honor to pay tribute to Temple Beth El on its 50th anniversary, which will continue to be celebrated throughout the year. This small but vibrant Jewish congregation has made an important contribution to the Midland community.

Since the 1890s, when the first Jewish family settled in this area, there has been a strong Jewish community. By 1955, the Jewish community in Midland totaled nearly 50 families. The following year, after having commuted to other cities for religious instruction and observance for many years, the decision was made to establish a local place of worship. After much discussion and with guidance from Rabbi Katz of Saginaw and the leadership of Ralph Cutler and Leonard Bernstein, the congregation's founding families provided the financial and material support necessary to design and secure a location

for both the temple and for a permanent rabbinical residence.

On December 29, 1957, Temple Beth El formally opened its doors at a dedication ceremony led by the congregation's first spiritual leader, Rabbi Marc Samuels, a graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary and a Holocaust survivor. In attendance were the 52 original member families, the congregation's officers, and many other community leaders. At its inception the congregation chose to affiliate itself with the conservative Jewish movement. In 2000, in response to the wishes of its members, the Temple decided to become a reform congregation.

I am sure that my colleagues in the Senate join me in congratulating the leadership, congregants, and the greater Midland community as they continue to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Temple Beth El. Their rich history and commitment to service has greatly impacted the small, close-knit Jewish community in Midland. We all look forward to at least 50 more years of spiritual guidance and leadership.