Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a business meeting to consider several General Services Administration Resolutions and S. 589, a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain Federal property to the United States Paralympics, Incorporated, a subsidiary of the United States Olympic Committee, to be followed immediately with a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing to Examine the Condition of our Nation's Bridges.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Frozen Out: A Review of Bank Treatment of Social Security Benefits'' .

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills

S. 1845, A bill to provide for limitations in certain communications between the Department of Justice and the White House (Whitehouse, Leahy).

S. 772, Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2007 (Kohl, Coleman, Feingold).

S. 1267, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007 (Lugar, Dodd, Graham).

S. 1703, Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act of 2007 (Durbin, Coburn).

II. Nominations

Jennifer Walker Elrod to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

Patrick Shen, Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expanding Opportunities for Women Entrepreneurs: The Future of Women's Small Business Programs:'' on Thursday, September 20, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, in order to conduct a Joint Hearing to receive the 2007 legislative presentation by the American Legion. The Committee will meet in 345 Cannon House Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled ``High Risk IT Investments: Is Poor Management Leading to Billions in Waste.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1377, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of Henderson, NV, certain Federal land located in the city, and for other purposes; S. 1433, to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to provide competitive status to certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska; S. 1608 and H.R. 815, to provide for the conveyance of certain land in Clark County, NV, for use by the Nevada National Guard; S. 1740, to amend the act of February 22, 1990, and the act of July 2, 1862, to provide for the management of public land trust funds in the State of North Dakota; S. 1802, to adjust the boundaries of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in the State of Idaho; S. 1939, to provide for the conveyance of certain land in the Santa Fe National Forest, NM; and S. 1940, to reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, and for other purposes.

And to receive testimony on two additional bills added to the hearing: S. 1143, to designate the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and the surrounding Federal land in the State of Florida as an Outstanding Natural Area and as a unit of the National Landscape System, and for other purposes; and S. 2034, to amend the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 to designate the Copper Salmon Wilderness and to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the North and South Forks of the Elk River in the State of Oregon as wild or scenic rivers, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask to be yielded 2 minutes.

Mr. President, the law we passed last Congress stripped the Federal courts of jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus despite a constitutional prohibition which says that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion, neither of which is the state of affairs today.

I want to make in this 2 minutes one essential point. The Specter- Leahy-Dodd amendment does not grant any individual the affirmative right to go to court. It does not grant a right of habeas corpus. It simply removes a legislative barrier to such action, restoring the law as it was before we enacted this provision in the last Congress, leaving it up to the courts--where it belongs and it always has been-- as to whether habeas corpus should be granted.

When we debated this provision in the last Congress, we received a letter from three retired Judge Advocates General who urged us not to strip the courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction. That letter, signed by Admirals Hutson and Guter, and General Brahms, said the following:

We urge you to oppose any further erosion of the proper

authority of our courts and to reject any provision that

would strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction.

As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison emphasized in the

Federalist Papers, the writ of habeas corpus embodies

principles fundamental to our nation. It is the essence of

the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may

deprive a person of liberty without some independent review

to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law

and fact. That right must be preserved. Fair hearings do not

jeopardize our security. They are what our country stands

for.

Well, we received similar letters from nine distinguished retired Federal judges and from hundreds of law professors from around the United States, and from many others.

I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have been talking with Senator McCain, and it is our understanding the agreement now is the Graham amendment, which would be next in order under the previous UC, would be laid aside temporarily--we think we are making some progress on working out that amendment--and then we would now have Senator Webb recognized to introduce his amendment.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that Senator Webb be recognized to offer his amendment.

I think that is the intention, as part of a unanimous- consent agreement. It is my understanding that is the intent, however, that will be part of a larger UC.

Mr. President, I discussed this with the Senator from Arizona. I ask unanimous consent that after the current lineup of speakers, Senator Brown be recognized for up to 10 minutes, Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then, as the Senator from Arizona mentioned, we will try to see if in the next few minutes we are able to come up with an agreement to schedule a vote--probably, I guess, around 5 o'clock, for the convenience of Senators.

Mr. President, we hope to be able in the next few moments, perhaps after Senator Martinez has gone, to enter into a unanimous consent agreement which would hopefully schedule votes on both the Webb amendment and on the McCain amendment. We expect those votes would begin at approximately 5:15. We do not have a unanimous consent locked in yet, but we do expect, perhaps after Senator Martinez has completed, to be able to offer a unanimous consent agreement.

That is the expectation. So two votes and 10 minutes interviewing between the two, and then move on to other amendments.

Madam President, over 4 years of war have stressed our Armed Forces to the breaking point. Our Army and Marine Corps are stretched dangerously thin. They are performing magnificently, as they always do. Chronic personnel and equipment shortages plague our nondeployed forces resulting in dangerously low readiness. As a nation, we simply do not have the ground forces necessary, nor are the few uncommitted forces trained and ready, to protect our interests against other threats around the world. As Army Chief of Staff GEN George Casey put it:

The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.

Nearly 1.6 million servicemembers have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the Army's 43 active brigades available for rotation, 10 brigades have been deployed three or more times. All others have been deployed once or twice, with the exception of one new brigade just forming. Of course, the single brigade stationed in Korea does not deploy as part of the Iraq or Afghanistan rotation. All of our National Guard combat brigades have at least one rotation to Iraq, Afghanistan, or

Kosovo. Two National Guard combat brigades have two rotations. Guard brigades from Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and New York have been notified that they should be prepared to deploy at the end of this year.

Through the first part of this year, units pushed to Iraq as part of the surge strategy barely had enough time to make up their personnel and equipment shortages or complete their training. Inadequate time to prepare for war puts a unit at risk when sent into harm's way.

We have the responsibility to make sure that our forces have adequate time available to prepare and then use that time to best advantage. We have accepted too much risk for too long.

Senator Webb's amendment goes to the heart of this obligation, ensuring that our forces have the time they need to recover and prepare. Multiple rotations and insufficient dwell time inherently raise readiness risks. Units must have the time necessary to fully man, equip, and train prior to their next deployment. Readiness reports we receive here in Congress consistently show that most of our nondeployed units are not ready to deploy, and those getting ready to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan do not have personnel and equipment necessary for comprehensive training until very late in their preparation. In order to provide some relief for the personnel shortages in next-to-deploy units, the Army is cutting training at its important officer and NCO schools. The Army has gone so far as to institute a 6-day training week at many of these schools to accelerate getting troops back to their units. For soldiers, especially young leaders and instructors just back from deployment, working a 6-day week starts to make dwell time feel a lot like deployment. Insufficient dwell time contributes to retention challenges, especially among young officers.

There is ample evidence that multiple long deployments are impacting our troops' mental health and family stability. Servicemembers and their families, particularly among our young officers and NCOs, are voting with their feet, leaving the military rather than endure the uncertainty and turmoil in their families' lives. There is no greater threat to the quality and viability of our all-volunteer force than the loss of these combat-experienced young leaders.

The Webb amendment exempts our special operations forces. Their deployment cycles are always irregular, their readiness sustained at much higher levels, and their ability to respond to emergencies is critically important. The exemption in this amendment preserves that flexibility.

Servicemembers and their families are weary of the deployment cycle and uncertainty about timing and length of deployments. They are eager for greater predictability about when and for how long troops will be at home or deployed. The Webb amendment will require the DOD to make earlier strategic and operational decisions which will result in greater predictability and stability for troops and their families.

The Webb amendment will incentivize the Department of Defense to greater certainty in the implementation of unit and individual rotation policies. Controlling deployment cycles is the only way to rapidly stop the dramatic loss of readiness in our nondeployed and next-to-deploy units. Controlling deployment cycles is the only way to provide the fastest possible relief to our troops and their families. Controlling deployment cycles is a critical step in preserving our all-volunteer military system. The Webb amendment deserves the support of this Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5:20 p.m. be for debate with respect to the Webb amendment 2909, with the time divided as follows: Senator Durbin be recognized for 5 minutes; at 5:05, the majority leader be recognized for 10 minutes; and at 5:15, for 5 minutes, which would be immediately prior to the vote, it be equally divided and controlled between Senators McCain and Webb or their designees; and that at 5:20, without intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the amendment; further, that upon disposition of the Webb amendment, there be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the McCain-Graham amendment No. 2918, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators McCain and Webb; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the amendment; that no amendment be in order to either amendment in this agreement; that each amendment must achieve 60 votes to be agreed to, and if neither vote achieves 60 votes, it be withdrawn; that if either amendment receives 60 votes, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

So Senator Carper would be after Senator Durbin for 5 minutes, and everything else will be delayed for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, with that modification, I ask that the unanimous consent request be agreed to.

Parliamentary inquiry: Like the previous vote, this amendment requires 60 votes?

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Madam President, the Senator from Texas, I understand, is now ready to offer an amendment. We have been alternating. My understanding is he will lay down his amendment tonight, then he will speak on his amendment for some period of time, and then we will pick that up tomorrow morning. There may very well be a side-by-side amendment relative to the Cornyn amendment. We do not know, though, until we see that amendment.

Then I would ask unanimous consent that--I do not have my ranking member here, however, so I am going to withhold the unanimous consent request. It is my intent to ask unanimous consent that after Senator Cornyn lays down his amendment and speaks on it, that we then move into morning business. That is my intent as soon as--all right, it turns out that has been cleared on that side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Cornyn is recognized, lays down his amendment, speaks to it, we then go into morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, could the request be restated? I apologize.

Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will not object--I understand Senator Leahy has now authorized me to withdraw his amendment which is pending, so it will avoid, perhaps, that pendency requirement for future amendments.

So I withdraw now the Leahy amendment.

I do not object.

Madam President, we have had an informal discussion. I am sad that there is not an opportunity on this bill to bring up the hate crimes bill. I do hope there is a way, following this session, to bring up the hate crimes bill. It has broad support and deserves to be heard and, I hope, passed. I discussed with Senator McCain the possibility that the Senator from Delaware would now be recognized. We agreed that he would at this time.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, first, I concur with something Senator McCain said which is that the floor is open now for people to come down and speak, either on the bill, on the pending habeas corpus amendment, or on any other matter on which they wish to speak. There will be no more votes today, I am authorized to say. Also, there will be a cloture vote tomorrow at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment. Then we hope to take action relative to the Graham amendment. There are some discussions going on relative to that amendment. Then, hopefully, we would promptly move to take up the Webb amendment. It is the intention of this manager that the Webb amendment then be called up immediately after the disposition of, first, the Specter-Leahy-Dodd cloture vote and then the Graham amendment, and it is my intention that Senator Webb then have his amendment called up. I believe Senator Webb will be ready to proceed at that time.

I will be happy to yield.

The Senator is correct. I did fail to mention that the leaders are meeting to see if there can't be a unanimous consent agreement worked out relative to the Iraq amendments. Senator Reid described that proposed unanimous consent agreement, but that is going on.

The Senator from Arizona is correct, we are going to seek to reduce the number of amendments that require rollcalls. We are going to seek time agreements. We have a huge number of amendments which have been filed, in the two hundreds. We made some progress because we disposed of 50 amendments the other day.

We very much thank Senator McCain, by the way, and his staff, and Senator Warner, for the efforts they are putting into this legislation. Senator McCain is a very easy person with whom to work. We are used to having people on the committee who are both chairman and ranking member, regardless who is in control of the committee, work on a bipartisan basis. Senator McCain is surely in that tradition. We are grateful for that effort.

Madam President, while we hope the Senator from Arizona is right and we can complete the bill this week, we also are aware of the fact that on Friday, we do have to leave here somewhat early because of the Jewish holidays. That will be only part of the day. I hope we can make tremendous progress this week. It may be a bit optimistic in terms of finishing it this week. That is going to depend on the cooperation of our colleagues. We have hundreds of amendments. We need colleagues who can clear many of them, and we need time agreements on the rest. It depends on our colleagues.

We are going to do everything we can to continue a great tradition here. May I say, this is the 46th year in a row that the authorization bill has come to the floor, and we are not going to break the record of having an authorization for every one of those previous 45 years. We always had it because of the provisions of the bill which are so important--the pay and benefits and the support of not only our troops but also their families.

When the Senator from Arizona made reference to the Wounded Warriors legislation, I know our Presiding Officer, Senator McCaskill, because of her active role and participation in that legislation, understands precisely what we

are saying. That legislation is so important that it is not only in the bill but it is in a separate bill which was passed that is now awaiting, hopefully, a resolution between the Senate and the House. But in any event, the Senator is correct, the presence of that legislation in this bill may be the greatest assurance we have that legislation is going to become law. There are a lot of reasons, hundreds of reasons, why we need this authorization bill passed. That is surely one of the most important ones, one that has had the support of so many of our Members. So many of our Members and our Veterans' Affairs Committee have been so active with that legislation as well.

I join in the comments of my good friend from Arizona and hope our colleagues will come to the floor now. We can take up matters. We can get unanimous consent. We can even set aside pending matters. There are things we can do this afternoon. I do hope our colleagues will come to the floor and give their speeches on habeas corpus or other subjects.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I see Senator Specter on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Specter is recognized, if Senator Graham is on the floor, he be recognized for debate only on the bill, and then that Senator Chambliss be recognized, if he is on the floor, for debate only, and that then the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair and my friend from Pennsylvania.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today returns to the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. This bill contains important benefits for our men and women in uniform, including pay raises, targeted bonuses and special pays, and benefits. It also includes funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support they will need.

Prompt Senate action on this bill will send an important message. Regardless of our position on the war in Iraq, we all support our men and women in uniform. The bill was approved by the Armed Services Committee on a unanimous 25-to-0 vote, and it is my hope it will receive a similarly strong endorsement from the full Senate.

We have a lot of hard work ahead of us before that can happen. As of today,

more than 300 amendments have been filed. We are working hard to clear as many of these amendments as possible, but some amendments will inevitably require votes. Where that is the case, I hope my colleagues will work with us to develop appropriate time agreements that protect the interests of everybody involved while expediting consideration of the bill.

Congress has enacted a Defense Authorization Act every year for more than 40 years. I hope we will build on that record and show our strong support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by working together to pass this bill.

On a procedural note, I understand the President signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 into law on Friday. In accordance with the new rules, I am placing into the Record a certification that each congressionally directed item in this bill and the accompanying report has been identified through lists identifying the names of the Senator or Senators requesting the item and that this information has been available on the committee's Web site for more than 48 hours.

In addition, the committee is in the process of collecting a certification from each such Senator that neither the Senator nor the Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, and, again, that is consistent with the requirements of the Senate rules now. In accordance with the requirements of the new rules, we will make these certifications available for public inspection on our Web site as soon as practicable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my certification of compliance with the requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

Mr. President, we are open to amendments. If Senators want to come to the floor now and offer amendments, it will be required we set aside a pending amendment. We are hoping to get unanimous consent to do that. We expect we will be able to get unanimous consent to do that. So Senators who have amendments, if they will come to the floor and discuss and describe their amendments, we will be able to hopefully make some progress, and then at a later time this afternoon hopefully make those amendments in order by a unanimous consent agreement to withdraw the pending second-degree amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and Senator Warner. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have any statements relating to any of these individual amendments printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand there are 50 amendments.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Admendment No. 2268

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the Levin substitute amendment; that Senator Leahy or his designee be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the subject of habeas corpus; that after the Leahy amendment is offered, Senator Graham or his designee be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment to strike section 1023; that the offering of these amendments does not preclude further amendments on the subject matter of these amendments.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up amendment No. 2022.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. No. 2022 is the amendment, and it is indeed the Specter-Leahy amendment. That is the amendment which was referred to in the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, Senator Leahy has already debated this amendment. I assume he would want to debate this further, but that would, of course, be up to him. But this was the amendment Senator Leahy was debating earlier this afternoon. Now that it is pending, it is open to debate.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Gladstone All-Star 11-12 Girls Softball Team on placing third in the Little League Softball World Series. Their determined and focused efforts throughout the postseason, which began in early July with the district tournament in Escanaba, have brought a lot of joy and pride to the Gladstone community. I am happy to have this opportunity to recognize this impressive achievement.

Gladstone capped a marvelous season with a thrilling come-from-behind 5-2 victory over an excellent team from Waterford, CT. The game was tightly contested throughout and was not decided until the first extra inning when Gladstone rallied to score the deciding three runs in the top of the seventh inning to secure a hard fought win. Gladstone displayed resilience in recovering from a loss the previous day to the eventual runner-up from Elgin, TX, to record this victory. It takes poise, determination, and teamwork to achieve this level of success, and I congratulate each member of the team on the way

they competed throughout the summer. Gladstone now enjoys the distinction of being the third team from Delta County to reach the Little League Softball World Series.

Girls Little League Softball, which began in 1974, has provided countless young women an opportunity to compete at a high level. Through the instruction they receive on and off the field, these young women gain valuable skills that will help them achieve success throughout their lifetime. The 2007 Gladstone All-Star 11-12 year-old Girls Softball Team includes Jordan Schwartz, Ashley Hough, Jammie Botruff, Heather Sanderson, Jordan Kowalski, Nicole Sharon, Shannon Wolf, Neena Brockway, Alison Austin, Nikki Barteld, Averi Kanyuh. The coaching staff includes Manager Andrew Schwartz and Assistant Coach John Nevala.

This is a summer these young women will certainly never forget. I know I am joined by their family, friends and supporters, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, in congratulating the entire team on a highly successful and memorable season. I look forward to hearing about many more successes from these young ladies in the future.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act to help prevent price manipulation and dampen the excessive speculation that have unfairly increased the cost of energy in the U.S.

This legislation is the product of more than 4 years of work examining U.S. energy commodity markets by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. That work has shown that U.S. market prices for crude oil, natural gas, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other energy commodities are more unpredictable and variable than ever before, and too often are imposing huge cost increases on the backs of working American families and businesses. The legislation I am introducing today is essential to help ensure that our energy markets provide prices that reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand for energy instead of prices boosted by manipulation or excessive speculation. It is also essential to close an egregious loophole in the law that was championed by Enron and other large energy traders in the heyday of deregulation and that continues to haunt our energy markets and harm American consumers through inflated and distorted energy prices.

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 106 Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. Government regulation 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. This legislation is necessary to close the Enron loophole and reduce our vulnerability to manipulation and excessive speculation by providing for regulation of the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders.

A stable and affordable supply of energy is 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. Futures contracts for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel are also traded on these exchanges. Presently, regulatory authority over the U.S. crude oil market is split between British and U.S. regulators.

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.

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 located in Georgia. 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.

Trading abuses plague existing energy markets. The key federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, reports that overall in recent years it has issued several hundred million dollars in fines for trading abuses in the energy markets. Several major enforcement actions are pending.

Since 2001, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation due to the lack of regulation of electronic energy exchanges under the so called ``Enron loophole.'' Although the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have brought a number of enforcement cases against energy traders, the CFTC's ability to prevent abuses before they occur is severely hampered by its lack of regulatory authority over key energy markets.

The Subcommittee first documented the weaknesses in the regulation of our energy markets in a 2003 staff report I initiated called, ``U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security.'' The report found that crude oil prices were ``affected by trading not only 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 report, ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth dominated the 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. The report recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation.

The Subcommittee's Report describes 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.

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.

The Subcommittee held two days of hearings relating to issues covered in its 2007 report. Both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law that would 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.

The legislation I am introducing today is intended to end the exemption from regulation that electronic energy trading facilities now have. The bill includes suggestions made by the exchanges, the CFTC, and natural gas users, and I will continue to seek their input as the legislative process moves forward.

Essentially, this bill would restore the CFTC's ability to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation from hiking energy prices. In particular, it would restore CFTC oversight of large-trader energy exchanges that were exempted from regulation in the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by means of the Enron loophole. The bill would require the CFTC to oversee these facilities in the same manner and according to the same standards that currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. Because these energy exchanges currently restrict trading to large traders, however, the bill would not require them to comply with rules applicable to retail trading or trading by brokers on behalf of smaller traders. In all other respects, however, including the rules that create position limits and accountability levels to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation, the bill would apply the same rules to energy exchanges like ICE as currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX.

The bill also would require large trades in U.S. energy commodities conducted from within the United States on a foreign board of trade to be reported to the CFTC. This provision is intended to ensure that the CFTC has a more complete view of the positions of U.S. energy traders buying or selling energy commodities for delivery in the United States. This provision could be waived by the CFTC if the CFTC reaches agreement with the foreign board of trade to obtain the same information.

Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I welcome good-faith comments on how this bill can be improved. I want to make it clear, however, that in my opinion the Enron loophole has got to be closed. Recent cases have shown us 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's 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.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a bill summary, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act to help prevent price manipulation and dampen the excessive speculation that have unfairly increased the cost of energy in the U.S.

This legislation is the product of more than 4 years of work examining U.S. energy commodity markets by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair. That work has shown that U.S. market prices for crude oil, natural gas, jet fuel, diesel fuel and other energy commodities are more unpredictable and variable than ever before, and too often are imposing huge cost increases on the backs of working American families and businesses. The legislation I am introducing today is essential to help ensure that our energy markets provide prices that reflect the fundamentals of supply and demand for energy instead of prices boosted by manipulation or excessive speculation. It is also essential to close an egregious loophole in the law that was championed by Enron and other large energy traders in the heyday of deregulation and that continues to haunt our energy markets and harm American consumers through inflated and distorted energy prices.

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 106 Congress. This loophole exempted from U.S. Government regulation 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. This legislation is necessary to close the Enron loophole and reduce our vulnerability to manipulation and excessive speculation by providing for regulation of the electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders.

A stable and affordable supply of energy is 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. Futures contracts for gasoline, heating oil, and diesel fuel are also traded on these exchanges. Presently, regulatory authority over the U.S. crude oil market is split between British and U.S. regulators.

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.

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 located in Georgia. 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.

Trading abuses plague existing energy markets. The key federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, reports that overall in recent years it has issued several hundred million dollars in fines for trading abuses in the energy markets. Several major enforcement actions are pending.

Since 2001, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been examining the vulnerability of U.S. energy markets to price manipulation and excessive speculation due to the lack of regulation of electronic energy exchanges under the so called ``Enron loophole.'' Although the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have brought a number of enforcement cases against energy traders, the CFTC's ability to prevent abuses before they occur is severely hampered by its lack of regulatory authority over key energy markets.

The Subcommittee first documented the weaknesses in the regulation of our energy markets in a 2003 staff report I initiated called, ``U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security.'' The report found that crude oil prices were ``affected by trading not only 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 report, ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas Market.'' Our report found that a single hedge fund named Amaranth dominated the 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. The report recommended that Congress close the ``Enron loophole'' that exempted such markets from regulation.

The Subcommittee's Report describes 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.

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.

The Subcommittee held two days of hearings relating to issues covered in its 2007 report. Both of the major energy exchanges, NYMEX and ICE, testified that they would support a change in the law that would 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.

The legislation I am introducing today is intended to end the exemption from regulation that electronic energy trading facilities now have. The bill includes suggestions made by the exchanges, the CFTC, and natural gas users, and I will continue to seek their input as the legislative process moves forward.

Essentially, this bill would restore the CFTC's ability to police all U.S. energy exchanges to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation from hiking energy prices. In particular, it would restore CFTC oversight of large-trader energy exchanges that were exempted from regulation in the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by means of the Enron loophole. The bill would require the CFTC to oversee these facilities in the same manner and according to the same standards that currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX. Because these energy exchanges currently restrict trading to large traders, however, the bill would not require them to comply with rules applicable to retail trading or trading by brokers on behalf of smaller traders. In all other respects, however, including the rules that create position limits and accountability levels to stop price manipulation and excessive speculation, the bill would apply the same rules to energy exchanges like ICE as currently apply to futures exchanges like NYMEX.

The bill also would require large trades in U.S. energy commodities conducted from within the United States on a foreign board of trade to be reported to the CFTC. This provision is intended to ensure that the CFTC has a more complete view of the positions of U.S. energy traders buying or selling energy commodities for delivery in the United States. This provision could be waived by the CFTC if the CFTC reaches agreement with the foreign board of trade to obtain the same information.

Preventing price manipulation and excessive speculation in U.S. energy markets is not an easy undertaking. I welcome good-faith comments on how this bill can be improved. I want to make it clear, however, that in my opinion the Enron loophole has got to be closed. Recent cases have shown us 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's 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.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a bill summary, and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I support the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. This bill provides $105.6 billion in fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a number of independent agencies. This legislation will improve road and bridge safety and address past shortfalls in spending on our Nation's infrastructure and housing and economic development needs.

This bill provides $41.2 billion to the Federal-aid Highways Program for disbursement to States and local governments to build, maintain, and repair highways, roads and bridges; $1.074 billion of which would go to Michigan.

I supported an amendment which will provide increased funding for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. As a result of this amendment, Michigan would get an additional $23,539,287 for bridge replacement, bridge rehabilitation, preventative maintenance, seismic retrofitting, bridge inspections, and activities designed to protect bridges and extend their life spans.

Mr. President, 78,000 bridges around the country have been identified as structurally deficient. Given the high number of bridges that are in need of urgent repair, which was made all the more apparent by the recent and tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, it is appropriate for the Senate to direct more funding to address the urgency of this problem.

The bill also provides $9.59 billion to operate America's public transit systems around the country.

Public housing needs have been significantly underfunded over the past few years. I am pleased that this bill increased funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to $38.74 billion.

This bill increases funding to $4.2 billion for the public housing operating fund and to $2.5 billion for the public housing capital fund which will help provide assistance to low-income, disabled, senior citizens, and families throughout the country. This bill also provides $735 million for the HUD section 202 program and $237 million for the HUD section 811 program. These programs provide grants to nonprofits and community organizations for the development of rental assistance and supportive housing for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

This bill would also provide $52 million for fair housing activities through the Fair Housing Initiatives Program and the Fair Housing Assistance Program. Over 4 million fair housing violations occur each year in the United States, and these programs play a vital role in addressing housing discrimination in our country.

Since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Community Development Block Grants, CDBG, has been reduced by 15 percent, and the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 would have reduced funding for this important program by another 20 percent. I am pleased that this bill includes $4.1 billion for CDBG, which provides State and local governments with block grants to fund local community development programs.

Mr. President, the Senate has done its work in funding the important transportation systems that keep our vehicles and people moving safely and efficiently and our economy humming as well as funding the housing and economic development programs on which so many of our citizens rely. This is despite the President's threat to veto this bill. I hope the President will have a change of heart and support our effort to invest in America's future.

Mr. President, I wish to read the key section of our bill. It says that:

A court order is not required for the acquisition of the

contents of any communication between persons that are not

located in the United States, for the purpose of collecting

foreign intelligence information without respect to whether

the communication passes through the United States, or the

surveillance device is located within the United States.

That is the heart of the matter. That is what Admiral McConnell has requested. That is what both bills provide, both bills cure the problem that exists. There is a problem. We have to cure it. Our bill, in addition to the Bond bill, both bills do that.

Now, what are the major differences between the bills? What Admiral McConnell has indicated to us in a statement:

The intelligence community should not be required to obtain

court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence,

from foreign targets, located overseas.

That is in both bills. Except our bill is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill, which does not have that key limitation and which, it seems to me, very clearly applies to U.S. citizens overseas. Our bill does not.

Now, if there is an incidental access to U.S. citizens, we obviously will permit that. That is not the problem. It is called minimization. We do not try to affect that. But the key difference between the Rockefeller-Levin bill and the Bond bill is that we carry out what Admiral McConnell has said repeatedly, not just in the statement I read but also in newspaper articles that he has written in the Washington Post.

What does he say there? He says that: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries.

Now, our bill does that. But what does the Bond bill do? The Bond bill

goes beyond that. In its first section it says:

Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under

section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance

directed at a person reasonably believed to be located

outside of the United States.

Any person. Does not say a foreign person. Admiral McConnell has been very precise. We have all heard him over and over again. He has been precise in his written statements, he has been precise orally. They want access, and we have to give them access.

When foreign persons communicate with foreign persons, even though, as our bill says, the communications might be routed through the United States, that is the problem that must be cured. It is cured in both bills. But we avoid doing, in our bill, what the Bond bill does, which is to say, as it very explicitly does: That if surveillance is directed at a person, which means any person--it could be a U.S. person, reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States--then it is permitted, it is authorized, in that first section of the Bond bill, 105(a). That is one of the critical differences, the most important difference, between Rockefeller-Levin, which does what the Admiral says we must do, find a way with the new technology where calls may be routed through the United States, to get to those communications by foreign persons to foreign persons.

We must do that to defend the country. We must do it. We do it. But we avoid doing what Admiral McConnell says he does not want to do, which is to get to the communications of Americans.

There you have to go for a warrant. That is what he says we should continue to do. He says it eloquently, in writing and orally. We protect that very vital interest.

There are a number of other differences. To give you one: What the Bond bill does is it says that: In terms of reviewing and auditing, the way this works, the audit will be carried out by the Attorney General of the United States, in effect auditing his own work, reviewing his own work.

On a semiannual basis, it says in section 4, the Attorney General shall inform the Select Committee, et cetera. The Attorney General shall give us a report concerning acquisitions--that is the intercepts--during the previous 6-month period. Each report shall include--then it describes all of the reports--a description of any incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence; incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence--so the Attorney General, under the Bond provision, is reporting to Congress about his own activities. What kind of an independent report is that?

So in the Rockefeller-Levin bill, we do not say to the Attorney General: Report on your own activities. We say to the inspector generals, three of them, they all have access here and all have a role: We want the independent assessment from you. We want a report to Congress not by an Attorney General reporting on his own activities but by the inspectors general who have that independence, which is so critically important.

I understand my time is up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

I have worked for many years to enact meaningful lobbying and ethics reform. In 1995, I helped lead the effort to pass the Lobbying Disclosure Act which helped to open up the world of lobbying, and the billions of dollars spent in it, to the light of day. By requiring paid lobbyists to register and disclose whom they represent, how much they are paid, and the issues on which they are lobbying, this act was a real step forward. A number of scandals over the past few years have illustrated the importance of taking these reforms a step further and this bill does just that.

This bill includes much needed lobbying and ethics reforms, some of which I sought to include in the Lobbying Disclosure Act 12 years ago. It includes provisions to ensure greater transparency and disclosure of lobbyist activities by requiring lobbyists to file their reports quarterly and electronically in an online, public, searchable database. This bill requires lobbyists to disclose to the Federal Election Commission when they bundle or gather over $15,000 in campaign contributions for any Federal elected official, candidate or political action committee. Additionally, lobbyists will be required to disclose their own campaign contributions as well as payments they make to Presidential libraries, inaugural committees or other organization controlled by or named for Members of Congress.

This bill also includes an important provision I authored to require reporting by foreign lobbyists. Foreign lobbyists file their disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registry Act. The forms are difficult to find and hard to understand. This bill will require a publicly accessible, electronic database containing FARA disclosures in the same format that will be in place for registrants under the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

Also included is a strict ban on gifts from lobbyists or their clients to Members of Congress and congressional staff. These perks have no place in Government and I am glad that this legislation will eliminate them.

Strong travel restrictions are also an essential component of this bill. The new rules will ensure that Members traveling on corporate jets would have to pay for them at the charter rate, not at the current level of a first class commercial ticket, which is but a fraction of the cost.

This bill strengthens restrictions on lobbying for former Senators and former senior Senate staff by prohibiting Senators from lobbying Congress for 2 years after they leave office and prohibiting senior Senate staff from lobbying any Senate office for 1 year after leaving Senate employment. Also included is a provision that prohibits Members and their staff from influencing the hiring decision of private organizations in exchange for political access.

This bill strengthens penalties for Members of Congress who are convicted of crimes that involve violations of the public trust by revoking Federal retirement benefits. It also increases the penalties for Members of Congress, senior staff and senior executive officials who falsify or fail to file financial disclosure forms.

I am also pleased that this bill includes earmark reforms to ensure transparency in the legislative process. Requiring that earmarks included in bills and conference reports are available to the public on line will allow the average American the opportunity to know where their tax dollars are going and it is my hope that it will help ensure the quality of the projects which are funded.

I commend my colleagues in both the House of Representatives and the Senate for working in a bipartisan way to pass this important legislation. Though this bill is not perfect, it is a significant improvement over current law. Some will continue to find ways to circumvent it and undermine the safeguards we put in place. Standing for honesty, openness and accountability in Government will forever be an unfinished task. We must continue to be aware of abuses and understand that further legislation may be necessary in the coming years to ensure the integrity of the legislative process.

Mr. President, I am proud that we have produced a bipartisan bill to continue to provide health care insurance to children of low-income parents. The Children's Health Insurance Program, which we created 10 years ago, has been a great success, but it is set to expire on September 30. This bill to reauthorize and expand the program deserves our strong support.

I urge the President to approve the bipartisan compromise my colleagues worked so hard to achieve and not to carry out his threat to veto a bill, a veto which could result in denying health care coverage to many uninsured children from working families.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a children's health insurance program under title XXI of the Social Security Act. This program allows states to insure children whose families are above Medicaid eligibility levels through block grants, and it allowed states flexibility in designing how CHIP would be implemented.

Since 1997, CHIP has received about $40 billion in appropriations and has been widely successful. Currently, 6.6 million children are enrolled in CHIP. Seventy percent of those children came from families with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level, and more than 90 percent were from families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level.

CHIP coverage leads to better access to preventative and primary care services, better quality of care, better health outcomes and improved performance in school. Some experts estimate that families with insured children are five times less likely to delay health care because of costs than families with uninsured children. Michigan has had particularly impressive results from CHIP and currently has the second lowest rate of uninsured children in the nation.

Although CHIP has been successful, it still fails to address the problem fully. Too many children qualify for the program but are unable to receive insurance because of inadequate funding. There are still 9 million uninsured children nationwide, 6 million of which are eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP. In Michigan, while 55,000 children are covered under CHIP, 90,000 Michigan children are currently eligible for Medicaid or MIChild, Michigan's CHIP program, but are not receiving services. In addition, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the recent decline in employer-sponsored health care coverage is threatening the access to private health care coverage for many more children.

With CHIP set to expire this year, the path we need to take is clear we need to reauthorize and to also expand CHIP.

This bill before us was reported by the Senate Finance Committee with a bipartisan majority of 17-4. It will reauthorize CHIP and increase funding for the program by $35 billion over 5 years. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 would ensure that there is sufficient funding to cover the children currently enrolled and to expand the program to additional children in need. This plan would increase outreach and enrollment for uninsured low-income children of the working poor, enhance premium assistance options for low-income families, and improve the quality of health care for our Nation's children.

This reauthorization would also provide $200 million in grants for states to improve access to dental coverage; require that states providing mental health services provide those services on par with medical and surgical benefits under CHIP; and allow states to use information from food stamp programs to find and enroll eligible children. This bill would also help to reduce racial and ethnic health care disparities by improving outreach to minority populations and provide new funding for state translation and interpretation services.

The additional $35 billion in funding is expected to reach an estimated 3.2 million additional uninsured American children from low- income families. Up to 50,000 more Michigan children would be covered over the next 5 years.

There are two aspects of the bill that are disappointing. The current CHIP program allows for flexibility at the State-level in how the program is implemented. The administration has encouraged this flexibility by approving waivers to some States that would allow them to cover services to other needy populations after ensuring that it is not at the expense of enrolling eligible children into CHIP.

Michigan has had a waiver that allows it to cover adults who make less than $3,500 a year--adults who are the ``poorest of the poor.'' But under the bill we passed today, some of these waivers will be phased out

The second disappointment is that this bill does not go as far as we could have to fund and expand CHIP. In the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, the Senate included an increase of $50 billion for CHIP. However, the bill, as a result of compromises made, provides $35 billion.

I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Kerry that would have provided the additional $15 billion that would have taken us back to $50 billion. With this additional funding, the Kerry amendment would have provided more incentives to increase the enrollment of uninsured children. Unfortunately, this amendment was not agreed to.

On balance, however, this is a strong bill. President Bush's approach would be far worse. The President wants to add only $5 billion over 5 years, which many believe will not even sustain the current levels of coverage and certainly would not help the millions of children still living without health insurance.

President Bush has threatened to veto the Senate's CHIP reauthorization bill, but I hope the Senate's action today will send a strong message to the President that this program has broad bipartisan support.

Here are just a few examples of the way in which CHIP fills a need. A courageous and hardworking mother from Royal Oak, MI, wrote:

As a single working mother, I could not afford the family

insurance that my employer offered, and definitely could not

afford private pay. Without this insurance I do not know what

I would have done. [SCHIP] offered us options, doctors

instead of emergency rooms, less time missed at work and

school. Please continue and increase funding for this

valuable program. Thank you.

A registered nurse from Berkley, MI wrote:

I work in Detroit with impoverished, uninsured and

underinsured adolescents and the SCHIP program has helped

tremendously in getting them the health care they so

desperately need.

And a registered nurse from Pleasant Ridge, MI, wrote:

It is an imperative to continue to support, and expand,

health care services to children. These services are the

building blocks of personal health leading to healthy, active

adults. Health promotion and disease prevention programs have

been shown to save significant healthcare dollars later in

life by assuring that each individual grows and develops to

their fullest potential. Healthy children become healthy

adults who then support the growth of communities and the

economy.

We have a moral obligation to provide Americans access to affordable and high quality health care. No person, young or old, should be denied access to adequate health care, and the expanded and improved Children's Health Insurance Program is an important step toward achieving that goal.

Mr. President, I was in a similar situation. I would have voted no had I been here. I was also in the same committee meeting.

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.