Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would inquire of the Chair the order of business now is the Interior conference report; is that correct?

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate the conference report of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2006 . This bill provides more than $26 billion for the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the Indian Health Service, and a number of other agencies that play vital roles in protecting our Nation's natural and cultural heritage.

Conferencing this bill with the House was not an easy matter, to say the least. The bill, as a whole, is close to $600 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Our conference allocation was $50 million below the Senate's original allocation, and we have had to shoehorn both House and Senate priorities into that reduced amount. To hit our number, we had to eliminate or reduce a number of items in the Senate bill that I would have preferred that we had kept. I suspect the House has similar feelings about some of their priorities, but we made these choices in as fair a manner as possible, both from the House and Senate perspective and the majority and minority perspective.

Lest I sound too negative, let me be clear that there are some good things and important things in this bill. We improved upon the budget request in a number of places, such as tribally controlled schools and Indian schools and hospitals and the community colleges that are located on our several reservations across the country. We have increased funding for our national parks. We preserved funding for local park programs. As my colleagues know, that was zeroed out. We have boosted funding for a number of Forest Service programs that received pretty rough treatment from the White House in their budget request.

This bill also provides an additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care, funding that is sorely needed to ensure that our veterans receive the kind of care they so richly deserve. Given the continued sacrifices being made by our men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is an honor to have the Interior bill serve as the vehicle for this critically important funding.

Finally, I want to thank my ranking member, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota. Not only are we neighbors in our home States, but we are neighbors here also and work in cooperation. Without his leadership, we could not have completed this bill. He has been a tireless champion for the tribally controlled community colleges and Indian health care and a number of other programs in this bill. Throughout the conference report, there is ample evidence of his hard work and his advocacy.

Let me also thank the majority and minority staffs of the subcommittees. I do not think we thank our staffs enough. They work long hours, crunching numbers, getting them to balance, and working to figure out where do we take what and put it where. They have been working for weeks producing this bill and then just several hours to produce this conference report. Conferencing with the other body is no easy matter, and I appreciate the staffs' work to get us to this point.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference report so we can devote our attention to other spending bills that await us. We have a great deal of work yet to do on appropriations bills, so I am quite happy to get this one out of the way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes, and more if needed, to the Senator from Texas, who has been a real champion for veterans benefits.

Mr. President, I do not know whether we have any more time remaining. The time has been set aside for Senator Byrd. Seeing no one to speak on this bill, I will yield back the remainder of my time also.

I yield back my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

I have no objection to that. I shall not object to it. We had about 30 seconds. I pulled the trigger a little too quickly. Senator Craig is in the Chamber and would like just about 30 seconds with regard to the Interior appropriations bill.

I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be

granted 30 seconds with regard to the Interior appropriations bill.

The Senator is correct. The Bureau of Land Management currently does not have the mechanism in place to implement a pilot project like this. However, there are entities in the private sector that have a well-established history of conducting oil and gas lease auctions online. I would encourage BLM in Utah to quickly identify a private sector partner and develop a pilot program in Utah for online oil and gas lease auctions and encourage the director of the BLM to make sure that the necessary resources are devoted to implementing this project in a timely manner.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Dorgan, a bill that addresses a persistent inequity in the agriculture industry.

Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement--in fact, even before then--Montana farmers have battled against false barriers to trade that harm their ability to compete in a global market. While most inputs to production agriculture--fertilizer, seed, equipment--can move easily across the U.S.-Canadian border, pesticides remain segmented. The pesticide industry has a vested interest in preserving these borders, because the barriers allow for price distortions that harm producers on both sides of the border.

The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tear down these barriers, and begin the process of harmonizing the pesticide registration process. The bill establishes a process by which interested growers can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to require a pesticide to be jointly labeled, if the product is already registered in both countries. See--there's the problem. We are talking here about the exact same chemical, produced by the same company, but priced at very different levels. Because the products have two different labels, the lower-price chemical remains out of reach of U.S. growers. When Montana farmers have to compete against Canadian growers who are getting their pesticides at a substantially lower price, that is an example of free trade gone wrong. In addition, this bill gives EPA the authority needed to require a joint label on a new product that is being introduced into the market.

It is important to note that this legislation is not restricted to Canada, so as not to violate U.S. trade agreements. The bill authorizes EPA to enter into negotiations to harmonize regulatory processes and requirements with other countries, as appropriate. The United States and Canada have been working for over a decade to streamline their registration processes, harmonize the requirements, and develop protocols for work sharing and joint reviews. A lot of groundwork has already been done between the U.S. and Canada, so we can move quickly towards development of a joint label between our two countries.

And there is no reason not to. Again, we are talking about the exact same product, being sold at two different prices to growers who have to compete against each other in the world market. NAFTA was supposed to tear down borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and yet this barrier remains. It is an irritant to Montana growers who are farming along the border.

It is also a problem for Canadian growers, and I look forward to working with Canada to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial way. There are times when pesticides are cheaper in the U.S., and U.S. growers often have access to a wider variety of products. So there is a shared interest in tearing down this barrier to free trade.

A recent study done by Montana State University underscored this point. For 13 pesticides widely used in Montana and Alberta, seven were less expensive in Canada, five were less expensive in the U.S., and one, glyphosate, showed little or no difference in price. False barriers that prevent pesticides from moving across the border are creating significant price distortions in the market, and those barriers need to come down.

Certainly, there are a number of factors that impact pricing, but there can be no doubt that trade barriers allow price differentiation, and that's not right. There will always be some price fluctuations-- they exist now, between

states, even between communities in the same state. But for a person farming along the Montana-Alberta border, who can see his competitor across that border and knows that his competitor's input costs are lower for no other reason than a trade barrier that should have been eliminated, that's going to bother him. If the guy one town over has better prices on pesticides, I can drive to get those, or negotiate with my local dealer. But if the guy across the border has better prices, I have no options, no bargaining power. That's just not right.

This is not an anti-industry bill. Growers need the crop protection industry, and it is important that the research and innovation in that sector continue. This bill will help to streamline regulatory processes and reduce the obstacles to registration, by requiring only one label. It simplifies distribution systems, by allowing companies to have just one label for the same product, even when it is being sold in two countries. So while this bill will address the sort of price distortions that farmers on the northern border find unfair, it also reduces cost to industry, and will ideally result in smoother registration processes.

In fact, representatives of the crop protection industry have said that the solution to trade barriers along the northern border is a joint label, and have testified in support of regulatory harmonization before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Since the passage of NAFTA, a technical working group on pesticide harmonization has worked diligently on the development of joint registration and labeling procedures, and has enjoyed the cooperation of the industry in those discussions. This bill accomplishes what both the industry and the producers have said is needed: regulatory harmonization between two nations, joint registration, and joint labeling.

This legislation is supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Durum Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Montana Grain Growers Association, and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association. It is time these barriers be eliminated. If we are going to have free trade in grain, then we need free train in the input costs for production agriculture. This bill accomplishes that. I ask Members to take a close look at this bill, and consider it seriously. Our growers deserve an end to the practice of artificially inflating the price of pesticides simply to take advantage of false barriers.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Dorgan, a bill that addresses a persistent inequity in the agriculture industry.

Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement--in fact, even before then--Montana farmers have battled against false barriers to trade that harm their ability to compete in a global market. While most inputs to production agriculture--fertilizer, seed, equipment--can move easily across the U.S.-Canadian border, pesticides remain segmented. The pesticide industry has a vested interest in preserving these borders, because the barriers allow for price distortions that harm producers on both sides of the border.

The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tear down these barriers, and begin the process of harmonizing the pesticide registration process. The bill establishes a process by which interested growers can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to require a pesticide to be jointly labeled, if the product is already registered in both countries. See--there's the problem. We are talking here about the exact same chemical, produced by the same company, but priced at very different levels. Because the products have two different labels, the lower-price chemical remains out of reach of U.S. growers. When Montana farmers have to compete against Canadian growers who are getting their pesticides at a substantially lower price, that is an example of free trade gone wrong. In addition, this bill gives EPA the authority needed to require a joint label on a new product that is being introduced into the market.

It is important to note that this legislation is not restricted to Canada, so as not to violate U.S. trade agreements. The bill authorizes EPA to enter into negotiations to harmonize regulatory processes and requirements with other countries, as appropriate. The United States and Canada have been working for over a decade to streamline their registration processes, harmonize the requirements, and develop protocols for work sharing and joint reviews. A lot of groundwork has already been done between the U.S. and Canada, so we can move quickly towards development of a joint label between our two countries.

And there is no reason not to. Again, we are talking about the exact same product, being sold at two different prices to growers who have to compete against each other in the world market. NAFTA was supposed to tear down borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and yet this barrier remains. It is an irritant to Montana growers who are farming along the border.

It is also a problem for Canadian growers, and I look forward to working with Canada to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial way. There are times when pesticides are cheaper in the U.S., and U.S. growers often have access to a wider variety of products. So there is a shared interest in tearing down this barrier to free trade.

A recent study done by Montana State University underscored this point. For 13 pesticides widely used in Montana and Alberta, seven were less expensive in Canada, five were less expensive in the U.S., and one, glyphosate, showed little or no difference in price. False barriers that prevent pesticides from moving across the border are creating significant price distortions in the market, and those barriers need to come down.

Certainly, there are a number of factors that impact pricing, but there can be no doubt that trade barriers allow price differentiation, and that's not right. There will always be some price fluctuations-- they exist now, between

states, even between communities in the same state. But for a person farming along the Montana-Alberta border, who can see his competitor across that border and knows that his competitor's input costs are lower for no other reason than a trade barrier that should have been eliminated, that's going to bother him. If the guy one town over has better prices on pesticides, I can drive to get those, or negotiate with my local dealer. But if the guy across the border has better prices, I have no options, no bargaining power. That's just not right.

This is not an anti-industry bill. Growers need the crop protection industry, and it is important that the research and innovation in that sector continue. This bill will help to streamline regulatory processes and reduce the obstacles to registration, by requiring only one label. It simplifies distribution systems, by allowing companies to have just one label for the same product, even when it is being sold in two countries. So while this bill will address the sort of price distortions that farmers on the northern border find unfair, it also reduces cost to industry, and will ideally result in smoother registration processes.

In fact, representatives of the crop protection industry have said that the solution to trade barriers along the northern border is a joint label, and have testified in support of regulatory harmonization before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Since the passage of NAFTA, a technical working group on pesticide harmonization has worked diligently on the development of joint registration and labeling procedures, and has enjoyed the cooperation of the industry in those discussions. This bill accomplishes what both the industry and the producers have said is needed: regulatory harmonization between two nations, joint registration, and joint labeling.

This legislation is supported by the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Durum Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Montana Grain Growers Association, and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association. It is time these barriers be eliminated. If we are going to have free trade in grain, then we need free train in the input costs for production agriculture. This bill accomplishes that. I ask Members to take a close look at this bill, and consider it seriously. Our growers deserve an end to the practice of artificially inflating the price of pesticides simply to take advantage of false barriers.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer some thoughts on the appropriations bill regarding homeland security. Being the shepherd of one Interior bill a couple of weeks ago, I can understand the problems that arise whenever we start into this business of making the appropriations to make our Government work. I congratulate Chairman Gregg and Senator Byrd and other members of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee because they have changed direction on this a little bit with regard to our borders.

Every time I go to my home State of Montana the borders are talked about. I know it is probably one of the most difficult areas over which we are given the command to protect. I have said it before, and I will say it again, we have to secure our borders. Particularly, we know about the situation on our southern border, but we have always been understaffed and underfunded and overlooked on the northern border, even after September 11, 2001.

We are faced with the task of patrolling the longest stretch of unprotected international border in the United States, nearly 550 miles of border in Montana. We have the same pressures there from terrorists, drug runners, and criminals. They can cross that border, enter our country, and do harm to our citizens.

Make no mistake, we have made some progress. Again, I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee on this bill. We were able to gain about 500 new Border Patrol agents along the northern border to relieve some facility overcrowding earlier this year in a new appropriation. Meanwhile, however, we have to look at the numbers. Over 500 million people cross our borders each year, 330 million of whom are not U.S. citizens. Where do these people go?

The committee has recognized we can no longer allow for the gaps in our national security. It has taken the proper steps to ensure that we have a plan in place to secure our borders.

I congratulate the chairman because these bills are difficult at best. But when we start talking about our borders, the security of our country, it takes on a whole new look. So I want to thank the managers of this bill for their work and their recommendations. It is too important to ignore any longer. It is my hope we can get this bill passed with a proper plan in place to secure our borders and get it to the President's desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the FAIR Ratings bill. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Snowe, and Allen.

As a former broadcaster, I understand that when TV stations plan their programming, they and their advertisers must rely on the information provided by commercial TV ratings companies. And it is vital that this data be as accurate, fair, and inclusive as possible, because TV ratings ultimately determine what programming ends up on the air. They also help broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. For these reasons, I feel that it is very much in the public interest for TV ratings to be fair, accurate, and as fully representative of the population as possible.

The dominant company that provides TV ratings, and has done so for the last 50 years, is Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen is a great company and a great American institution--no doubt about it. The innovation that Nielsen showed in its early years, and continues to show today in other ways, show that its leading role in the field is well-deserved.

Our friends from Nielsen may have already spoken to many of you about this bill, and let me assure you up front that this is not a bill ``against'' Nielsen. It would apply to any other company or new technology whose ratings service determines what we see on TV. But Nielsen will definitely be the most affected party if the bill passes, so let me characterize this instead as a bill to keep Nielsen honest and accountable to its customers, and to the public.

Because Nielsen today is pretty close to being a monopoly, any way you look at it. A private, unregulated monopoly provider of an essential public service. And as basic economics and everyday practice show, monopolies have the ability to abuse their power, because they are not constrained by competition--there is nowhere else for a TV station or advertiser to go if they don't like what they get or how they are treated. Barriers to entry are pretty high in that business-- it is not simple or cheap to set up a nationwide TV ratings service.

And that monopoly power has been abused in the past. Forty years ago or so, there were a couple of nationwide scandals about TV ratings. I remember that well, and some of you may even have seen the movie. Payola and game shows. At that time, Nielsen's service was found to be mixed up with all that in some way, and was reporting flawed data.

And Congress got involved. The Senate had hearings for many months, and at the end of it, there was a report--the Harris Commission report--that called for the creation of an independent, industry-run, private oversight body to audit and accredit Nielsen's ratings measurement systems for accuracy.

That body was created in 1964 and is now called the Media Rating Council. It continues to audit and accredit TV ratings systems to this day, consulting closely with Nielsen and its own members, who are the main consumers of TV ratings data. It has long experience and great expertise at conducting audits of ratings data for quality and accuracy. And it has broad industry support and participation.

The Media Rating Council's role today, and its relationship with Nielsen, or any other TV rating company that may come to equal prominence in the future, are what concern me and moved me to introduce this bill.

Last year, Nielsen introduced a new technology called Local People Meters, which was designed to measure viewer behavior in a more accurate way and to replace the old paper diaries. This system was similar to a technology that Nielsen had introduced in the late 1980s. In both cases, there were big changes in the TV ratings when Nielsen moved from the old system to the new one. To the extent that these changes simply captured viewer preferences more accurately, this was good for the industry and for TV viewers in general. There is no public interest in which channel gets higher or lower ratings, so long as the measurement is accurate.

But in certain cases, in four of our largest cities last year, it was not. It turns out that, since the meters operate differently from the diary system, there were flaws in the measurement of the underlying data by demographic group, due to higher ``fault rates'' among certain groups: African-Americans, Hispanics, younger viewers, larger families, and certain others.

And here is where the Media Rating Council came in. They had audited the data and examined the people meter system in certain cities in advance, in a trial period, and identified these problems. And they told Nielsen about them in advance. And they told Nielsen that the undercounting should be fixed before it sold the data from this system commercially.

And what did Nielsen do? It effectively ignored the MRC's prior findings. It said it would work to fix the system while it was already ``live'' and producing real TV ratings--with those flaws--and would continue to roll out the new technology in other cities before the problems were fixed in the old ones.

I chaired a hearing last summer in the Commerce Committee on this issue, and have continued to monitor the situation closely since then. At that hearing, Nielsen indicated that it would have the problems fixed within a few weeks. Now, a year later, they are still not fixed, despite clear instructions from the Media Rating Council. And while Nielsen has been cooperative with customers and critics--to its credit--the fundamental issue of oversight enforcement has not been resolved.

Now I agree with Nielsen, and most others do too, that the people meters, when implemented correctly, produce better numbers than the diaries. And we should be glad that Nielsen is devoting the resources to developing new technologies, as it should. The diary system, after all, hasn't really changed much since the 1950s.

But it is also clear that Nielsen should not have moved ahead without the full prior approval of the Media Rating Council, which is the expert organization set up--at the behest of Congress--to ensure TV ratings accuracy. It was this action, more than any of the other details of the controversy, that indicated to me that the oversight system was missing some essential teeth.

So my bill simply makes prior Media Rating Council accreditation for TV ratings systems mandatory, not voluntary, as it is today. It backstops a system that has been in place for 40 years.

It is not a bill about the Local People Meter system. It is not a bill about the ratings of one broadcast company or any group of companies. It is not even a bill about Nielsen, although it will clearly be the most affected company.

Further, there is no government role whatsoever envisioned in this bill. It does not create any new government standards, regulation, or bureaucracy: the oversight will be carried out by a private, self- governing, industry body that has already been operating for 40 years.

So, I hope we can all agree that accurate TV ratings are in the public interest. I hope we can all agree that private industry oversight, by the entity set up by Congress 40 years ago, is the best way to ensure that. And if we can, I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will support this bill, on behalf of all television viewers throughout the United States.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the FAIR Ratings bill. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues, Senators Martinez, Snowe, and Allen.

As a former broadcaster, I understand that when TV stations plan their programming, they and their advertisers must rely on the information provided by commercial TV ratings companies. And it is vital that this data be as accurate, fair, and inclusive as possible, because TV ratings ultimately determine what programming ends up on the air. They also help broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. For these reasons, I feel that it is very much in the public interest for TV ratings to be fair, accurate, and as fully representative of the population as possible.

The dominant company that provides TV ratings, and has done so for the last 50 years, is Nielsen Media Research. Nielsen is a great company and a great American institution--no doubt about it. The innovation that Nielsen showed in its early years, and continues to show today in other ways, show that its leading role in the field is well-deserved.

Our friends from Nielsen may have already spoken to many of you about this bill, and let me assure you up front that this is not a bill ``against'' Nielsen. It would apply to any other company or new technology whose ratings service determines what we see on TV. But Nielsen will definitely be the most affected party if the bill passes, so let me characterize this instead as a bill to keep Nielsen honest and accountable to its customers, and to the public.

Because Nielsen today is pretty close to being a monopoly, any way you look at it. A private, unregulated monopoly provider of an essential public service. And as basic economics and everyday practice show, monopolies have the ability to abuse their power, because they are not constrained by competition--there is nowhere else for a TV station or advertiser to go if they don't like what they get or how they are treated. Barriers to entry are pretty high in that business-- it is not simple or cheap to set up a nationwide TV ratings service.

And that monopoly power has been abused in the past. Forty years ago or so, there were a couple of nationwide scandals about TV ratings. I remember that well, and some of you may even have seen the movie. Payola and game shows. At that time, Nielsen's service was found to be mixed up with all that in some way, and was reporting flawed data.

And Congress got involved. The Senate had hearings for many months, and at the end of it, there was a report--the Harris Commission report--that called for the creation of an independent, industry-run, private oversight body to audit and accredit Nielsen's ratings measurement systems for accuracy.

That body was created in 1964 and is now called the Media Rating Council. It continues to audit and accredit TV ratings systems to this day, consulting closely with Nielsen and its own members, who are the main consumers of TV ratings data. It has long experience and great expertise at conducting audits of ratings data for quality and accuracy. And it has broad industry support and participation.

The Media Rating Council's role today, and its relationship with Nielsen, or any other TV rating company that may come to equal prominence in the future, are what concern me and moved me to introduce this bill.

Last year, Nielsen introduced a new technology called Local People Meters, which was designed to measure viewer behavior in a more accurate way and to replace the old paper diaries. This system was similar to a technology that Nielsen had introduced in the late 1980s. In both cases, there were big changes in the TV ratings when Nielsen moved from the old system to the new one. To the extent that these changes simply captured viewer preferences more accurately, this was good for the industry and for TV viewers in general. There is no public interest in which channel gets higher or lower ratings, so long as the measurement is accurate.

But in certain cases, in four of our largest cities last year, it was not. It turns out that, since the meters operate differently from the diary system, there were flaws in the measurement of the underlying data by demographic group, due to higher ``fault rates'' among certain groups: African-Americans, Hispanics, younger viewers, larger families, and certain others.

And here is where the Media Rating Council came in. They had audited the data and examined the people meter system in certain cities in advance, in a trial period, and identified these problems. And they told Nielsen about them in advance. And they told Nielsen that the undercounting should be fixed before it sold the data from this system commercially.

And what did Nielsen do? It effectively ignored the MRC's prior findings. It said it would work to fix the system while it was already ``live'' and producing real TV ratings--with those flaws--and would continue to roll out the new technology in other cities before the problems were fixed in the old ones.

I chaired a hearing last summer in the Commerce Committee on this issue, and have continued to monitor the situation closely since then. At that hearing, Nielsen indicated that it would have the problems fixed within a few weeks. Now, a year later, they are still not fixed, despite clear instructions from the Media Rating Council. And while Nielsen has been cooperative with customers and critics--to its credit--the fundamental issue of oversight enforcement has not been resolved.

Now I agree with Nielsen, and most others do too, that the people meters, when implemented correctly, produce better numbers than the diaries. And we should be glad that Nielsen is devoting the resources to developing new technologies, as it should. The diary system, after all, hasn't really changed much since the 1950s.

But it is also clear that Nielsen should not have moved ahead without the full prior approval of the Media Rating Council, which is the expert organization set up--at the behest of Congress--to ensure TV ratings accuracy. It was this action, more than any of the other details of the controversy, that indicated to me that the oversight system was missing some essential teeth.

So my bill simply makes prior Media Rating Council accreditation for TV ratings systems mandatory, not voluntary, as it is today. It backstops a system that has been in place for 40 years.

It is not a bill about the Local People Meter system. It is not a bill about the ratings of one broadcast company or any group of companies. It is not even a bill about Nielsen, although it will clearly be the most affected company.

Further, there is no government role whatsoever envisioned in this bill. It does not create any new government standards, regulation, or bureaucracy: the oversight will be carried out by a private, self- governing, industry body that has already been operating for 40 years.

So, I hope we can all agree that accurate TV ratings are in the public interest. I hope we can all agree that private industry oversight, by the entity set up by Congress 40 years ago, is the best way to ensure that. And if we can, I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will support this bill, on behalf of all television viewers throughout the United States.

Mr. President, today, I join my colleagues Senator Domenici, Bennett, Dorgan, Murkowski, Bingaman, Johnson, and Salazar, in support of S. 895, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005.

The Rural Water Supply Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a program that ensures that a basic need--the need for a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply--is not neglected. Overall, the bill will guarantee that the Bureau of Reclamation has sufficient authority to address the unique needs of rural and small communities in the West, and it will do so in a manner that respects the States' primary role in water resources management.

The U.S. Census Bureau cites that 46 percent of Montanans lived in rural areas in 2000. These people and others in Western States deserve a safe, affordable, and reliable water supply--an essential component of a healthy life.

I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation for not only Montanans but for all rural citizens in Western States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we may proceed with a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following postal naming bills en bloc: S. 571, S. 775, S. 904, H.R. 120, H.R. 289, H.R. 324, H.R. 504, H.R. 627, H.R. 1001, H.R. 1072, H.R. 1082, H.R. 1236, H.R. 1460, H.R. 1524, H.R. 1542, and H.R. 2326.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 590, S. 867, S. 892, S. 1206, and S. 1207 en bloc, and these bills placed on the calendar.

I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the regular order.

That is correct.

Mr. President, we do not have it yet.

Mr. President, I assure the Senator from California, I know we have it somewhere, and I will find it.

That is reassuring; isn't it? Everybody gets to read it-- that is different in the Senate. We have it.

Amendment No. 1068

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and that the Senator from California be recognized.

Mr. President, we better open up this morning and characterize what the Burns-Chambliss-Inhofe amendment does compared to what is being advocated by my friend from California.

Our amendment directs the administrator of EPA to conduct a thorough

review of all third-party intentional human dosage studies based on six principles listed at the National Academy of Sciences in their February 2004 report. The National Academy report found that, in certain cases, the societal benefits of such studies outweigh the risks.

This amendment also directs the administrator to issue a final rule that addresses applying ethical standards to third-party studies involving intentional human dosing to identify or quantify toxic effects within 180 days of enactment of this act. In other words, they have an open end now where they drag their feet as far as offering reports to Congress.

By the way, I ask unanimous consent Senator Brownback of Kansas be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, we know we can use very emotional examples to draw our attention to this issue. My first thought, I don't think there is a chemical engineer or a scientist in this Senate. I can't say that for sure, without having a degree in chemical engineering. Nonetheless, we have to rely on reports. We also have to rely on reports that are peer reviewed from many different sources.

What the Senator from California has brought to the Senate this morning has a few flaws. First of all, they are quoting from a staff draft of a study, and we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know what the final rule will look like. The administrator has not even seen it, let alone made any recommendations to be agreed to. That is No. 1.

Basically, the Senator's amendment prohibits the EPA from conducting or accepting research involving intentional dosing of human subjects. She referred to the CHEERS study. What is the CHEERS study? In the CHEERS study, the agency proposed to monitor children's exposure to pesticide in a specific population. That is what it is was for. The proposed CHEERS study, developed by the Office of Research and Development at EPA, was an observational and biomonitoring study and not a dosing study. As a result, her amendment does not impact CHEERS or any other similar type of study. I want that in the Record. We should be very clear about that.

We are not chemists or chemical engineers. We are not scientists. All of the warnings and all of the charts we have seen this morning are a result of studies, be they EPA, through peer review or third-party studies with peer review. We would not know this information had there not been studies, third party or by the EPA. Her amendment is very clear. It just says we stop testing.

So I ask my colleagues, on this issue: How do we know? How can we find out? Because we need this information. Do we allow chemists or chemical engineers to do this, with no backup, working for a private corporation in the business of selling pesticides, fumigants, herbicides, detergents, car washes, carpets, the padding on our chairs? Everything we touch or we live with has a so-called chemical element to it. Do we just take their word for it, those who are in the business of selling these products? Unless there are third-party studies, with peer review and EPA studies with the same standards of peer review, that would be the case.

This is not like the testing of prescription drugs. Having no test on chemicals, no information on chemicals that we use in the production of food and fiber and shelter in this country is not a very good idea. It is not a good idea. As I said, would we know about the warnings that were used today had it not been for testing?

Senator Boxer's amendment is so far reaching that between 60 and 70 chemicals and 1,300 tolerances, or the allowable pesticide residue on foods, would be affected. It would mean taking those reports, putting them away, and never referring to them again. That does not make a lot of sense. Not only is there the time, money, and effort involved, but also some of the results we know of today we would not have known this morning in order to make this debate.

For example, I have a letter from the American Mosquito Control Association, which opposes this amendment offered by my good friend from California. By the way, they support our amendment. I am going to offer this letter in its entirety for the Record, but I want to read one little paragraph that I think speaks to the essence of this debate. I quote:

The emergence and spread of West Nile Virus in the United

States has re-emphasized the need for safe and effective

mosquito control strategies that reduce the risk of acquiring

this devastating disease. Personal protective measures such

as repellents figure prominently in these strategies--as do

federally-registered public health pesticides, when

indicated. This amendment, as written, will effectively cease

future research on alternatives to DEET and curtail sound,

ethical studies on the toxicology of public health

pesticides. The AMCA considers the availability of

scientifically sound and ethically-obtained toxicology data

to be essential in determining levels of risk from both

disease and the means used to control it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Studies of this kind on safety must move forward or we will have a public health situation being created by the unintended consequence of not performing those studies.

Now, if I have not convinced you to vote with me yet, I also have an extensive list of pesticides that rely on human studies to determine safe exposure levels for more than 50 crops grown in our States. In fact, these pesticides, cited by Senator Boxer's and Representative Waxman's June 25 study, have critical uses in 39 States. A few of these States include: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Ohio, and West Virginia. I say to the Presiding Officer, I am sorry, they did not mention South Carolina. But these pesticides, for every State listed, are used in the production of food and fiber for this country.

Now, I realize there are a lot of folks who do not really understand agriculture maybe that much, but you have to understand the second thing we do in this country every day--after we get up--is eat. For the first thing we do, we have a lot of options. But the second thing we do is eat.

The largest industry probably contributing to the GDP of California is agriculture. If it is not the largest industry, I would be surprised. Think about your brussel sprouts, strawberries, apples, dry beans. Look at all your almond production, beats, peppers, celery, cauliflower, pistachios. The list goes on and on of these chemicals, these pesticides, these fumigants, these herbicides, all used in the production of food and fiber for this country. It is pretty amazing.

Senator Chambliss and I are offering a reasonable alternative from the amendment offered by the Senator from California. Our amendment is plum simple. It directs the Administrator of the EPA to ``conduct a thorough review of all third-party intentional''--``intentional''-- ``human dosing studies'' based on the National Academy of Sciences February 2004 report.

I think it is found in this book offered as a guideline. I will give you the headings: ``The Four-Step Process of Human Health Risk Assessment.'' Step one: ``Hazard Identification,'' ``Dose Response Assessment,'' ``Exposure Assessment,'' and ``Risk Characterization.'' That is the guideline. Pretty simple--a little book. Anyone can order it. Send me your check and $5 for handling for mail, and I will get it out to you. But that is what it says.

We are directing the EPA to ``issue a final rule that addresses applying ethical standards to third-party studies involving intentional human dosing'' ``within 180 days of the enactment of this Act.''

We are putting them on a time line. We want to know. The public has a right to know. Everyone involved wants to know. People who work on allergies, many things that are normal in our everyday lives, want to know: Quit dragging your feet. Let's have it. Let's get the report because we think it is pretty important.

There are ethical standards established. They are already in place. Let's get the final rule. That is what we are telling this Director. That is what we are telling this agency--that we want to know--because as policymakers, we do not want to get caught in this idea of an unintentional consequence.

None of these warnings that we have on the label of our shirt or on our detergent when we wash our dishes at night--none of those warnings would be there had there not been extensive work in risk assessment and public health at heart if those tests had not been carried out.

Since that standard is set, what we are saying now is not to proceed just blindly down a path using no guidelines, but to write the rule that allows policymakers to move forward with adopting the public's attitude toward this issue.

And we can make a mistake. We usually base all our decisions on history. As to the history of this, we study this without going blindly off a cliff. We usually use history. If we monkey with it, if we take part of it out, and that is not available to us either, or to the EPA, or anybody else who is making a decision as to the reliability or the safety of that particular product, then we have done an injustice to the people who make the decisions. That seems pretty logical to this nonscientist, nonchemist from the State of Montana.

Let's take the emotion out of it, and let's look at things as they really are in the world around us. We do not touch anything, folks--we do not leave the garage, we do not even get up in the morning, we do not do anything in this environment around us where there are no chemicals. Some of them are even added by man. But we live in that kind of a world, with our relationship even with the Sun, the soil, and the water. We live in a chemically reactive world. The more we know about it, the more we know about our own environment and those steps we have to take in order to protect it.

So what I and my colleagues are proposing in this Burns amendment is that we proceed with standards and direct the EPA to make their rule final and publish it in the Federal record for all to see--and all to either uphold or criticize. That is all we are doing. It is pretty straightforward. But we cannot just say: Stop, stop the clock. We cannot do that. That is not fair to the American people. It is not fair to the American consumer, and it is not fair to the folks who are involved in producing food, fiber, and shelter for this country.

If you want more of your food to come from offshore, where there are no tests, there is no way to regulate, then you just stop the process because that is where it will be coming from, even with our tremendous ability to produce for a society that we think is probably the healthiest in the world.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment, to answer the National Academy of Sciences point, the six quantifying objectives, as mentioned, come from the book ``Intentional Human Dosage Studies for the EPA, Respiratory Purposes, Scientific, and Ethical Issues.'' They were taken from that book. The National Academy is found in the amendment.

Again, we can characterize it any way we would like. I would just say that we still base our decisions on history. This amendment is paramount. And I understand, nobody likes the idea of human dosing. If we could get around it, if there was any sure way we could get around it, we would. I don't like it either. But nonetheless, as we talk about this, we are holding up testing on the world around us. We cannot afford to lose any time or information. We owe that to the American people, to the consumer. We also owe it to the people who produce food and fiber.

How much time is remaining on the other side?

Mr. President, we have a vote coming up, and we probably can get to that in the next 5 or 10 minutes, if that is OK with the Senator from California.

If you want to close, I will make a short statement. Then we will go to the vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will recap. Our approach is a commonsense approach. It just makes sense and logic that the information we need is only found in the work that we do on the safety of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, all of that. It becomes very important to the agricultural producers, but also it is more important to the safety of our consuming public.

It has been a good debate. I yield the remainder of my time.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the Boxer amendment.

The Senator has 1 minute prior to the vote on her amendment.

I ask unanimous consent for that.

I thank the Chair.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1023

I yield to the Senator from California on her amendment. She has 1 minute.

Mr. President, it just makes sense that we do not suspend testing at all, as this amendment would do. It is bad logic to throw aside almost over 20 reports that give us the history and the institutional knowledge to complete the work for the safety of the consumer and also the people who produce food, fiber, and shelter in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed do.

Amendment No. 1025

Mr. President, by previous order, we move to the Dorgan amendment No. 1025.

Mr. President, we have increased Indian Health Service this year quite a lot at $135 million. I agree with my colleague from North Dakota--it does not cover all the bases. It is one of the places we have increased the funds in this year's budget and this year's appropriation. Committees also provided $82 million over the administration request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The increase comes at a time when all other agency budgets in the bill are not growing. In fact, many are declining. The EPA is reduced by $144 million below their current year level. The Forest Service is $648 million below theirs. The National Park Service is $51 million below theirs. I mention these reductions saying we have done everything this committee could do to channel more money into the places needed. We did that with regard to the Indian Health Service.

There are seven reservations in my State. We are very much aware of the shortcomings. We have one reservation we are trying to work awfully hard with right now because there is a shortfall in health services. Of course, we are trying to take care of that, protect the integrity of the tribe and also their budgets and their expenditures. We are trying to do that now. We have a real job on our hands as to how we balance the act.

Right now, the offset the Senator from North Dakota has proposed is not correct as CBO will not score that. This $1 billion, of course, comes under another category.

I will yield.

We will try the Congressional Budget Office.

Of course, there are other things that have entered into this. I have often wondered why they always call it OMB, Office of Management and Budget. I think maybe they call it OB. Nonetheless, we can kick that around.

It does not score with the Congressional Budget Office.

The pending amendment, 1025, offered by the Senator from North Dakota, increases the discretionary spending in excess of the 302(b) allocation to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the budget.

I ask unanimous consent this vote be set aside and we have this vote immediately after the debate as to 1026, which is the amendment of Senator Sununu to this act.

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 guess I have some time remaining. I yield back that time.

We are awaiting the arrival of the manager of the Sununu amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota brings up a good point on humanitarian needs. I don't know what the specifics are in the case of the sergeant. I have a strong feeling toward the sergeant. If he has family, and with the service to his country, I am prone to find out why his permission to travel to that country under these circumstances was denied. There must be something out there that we do not know.

We have been reluctant in our dealings with Mr. Castro and Cuba. Embargos and this type thing only hurt the people who are the average citizens of a country. I have a feeling for this. However, there is an objection to it. We will have a vote on it. I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota bringing up this circumstance. We should look into it and find out what the circumstance is behind it. There are some more maybe pending that we do not know anything about. Nonetheless, we will vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I have no more comments on this. I reserve the remainder of my time. There was a speaker to come to the floor, and he has not arrived yet, so I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have another speaker coming on our side who is on his way.

In the meantime, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I yield time to Senator Kyl for the purpose of withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. There is a larger problem on the Arizona River. We are all aware of it. It is going to take a lot of us working together to deal with that river because of population growth, especially in the wintertime, from Lake Mead and going south. Arizona is only a little piece of that. But, nonetheless, the Senator is very much interested in what happens all the way down, for the simple reason that with Nevada, Arizona, and California, it will take a lot of people working together to deal with that problem. I appreciate the Senator's interest in that, and I do pledge to work with the Senator on authorization.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, all time has expired.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have accepted amendment No. 1046 on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, we are ready to move. I would call for the regular order under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the amendments in the order they were offered, to be followed by third reading and a vote on passage of the bill as provided under the previous order. I also ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes between each vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Nobody can sum this argument better than the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Nevada. I would say this: This is a change in policy and regulation, and we should consider that.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this about winds up our work.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order on the pending amendment.

I appreciate the concerns raised by the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and commit to working with him to address this issue of importance to him and the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Yes, we will certainly do that.

I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his support for this unique Park Service asset. As the Senator from Virginia has indicated, the facilities at the Filene Center's main gate are in serious need of replacement to improve employee space and visitor services. The Senator from Virginia has my commitment to ensure that the needs of this facility are fully evaluated as we work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives on the FY 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

The subcommittee would be happy to assist the Senator in this matter.

It is my understanding.

We will see that the change is made.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct. The committee restored $2 million to the BIA budget request for Water Management and Planning activities and continues funding for the BIA Water Technician Training program, which the administration proposed to eliminate.

Mr. President, the role of partnerships is rapidly changing and our subcommittee has encouraged the Park Service to develop guidelines and standards for their partners. I am encouraged by the progress. It also seems appropriate that we not hobble partners with unnecessary and expensive requirements. I will be glad to look at ways to do that.

rahway valley sewerage authority

I concur with the ranking member. I believe this project does have merit, and we will see what we can do for this project as this bill moves to conference.

competitive sourcing process

The Senator is correct. I am willing to work with the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dorgan to request in writing this audit by the Government Accountability Office.

I thank the Senator from New York for her comments about the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. We did provide additional funding to allow Maine to become integrated into the cooperative and I appreciate the Senator's position with respect to her State of New York. I will consider additional funding as the bill moves to conference.

It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the administration's budget requested $9.4 million to deal with phase-1 improvements to the water and wastewater systems at Lake Mead.

Well, let me assure the minority leader that we will look for ways to help fund this long overdue maintenance of Lake Mead's water and wastewater systems. One option we can consider is to find funding for the failing wastewater system this year--I am told this is roughly $2.7 million--since it seems to pose the greatest threat to Lake Mead and its visitors. And we will certainly give the rest of the project the attention it deserves.

The Senator is correct. The Phoenix Indian Medical Center Hospital System is at the top of the priority list for replacement of its inpatient facility. As part of this replacement, three ambulatory clinics will be constructed in the region to provide better health care services to the tribes in the area, including those in Nevada. The amount of $4 million in planning funds for design of two of the center's clinics was provided last year. This year, an additional $8 million for the construction of one of the clinics that is part of that project is recommended in the Senate bill.

My State of Montana is home to tens of thousands of Native Americans, and I am familiar with the health care challenges that they and other Native Americans around the Nation face. I understand that the minority leader expects IHS to meet with all Nevada tribes to discuss ways to improve their health care services.

The Senator from New Mexico is correct.

I will be happy to consider the Senator's request should funding become available.

I understand the importance of the Highlands Region. Should funding become available during conference proceedings, I will work with my colleagues to seek funds to support land conservation partnership projects and open space purchases from willing sellers in the Highlands region.

amendment no. 1031

Mr. President, I want to thank a lot of folks for their work on this bill we have considered today and over the last few days. This has been a bill we have worked our way through. I wish we could have sped it up. I thank the minority staff, Peter Kiefhaber and Rachael Taylor and Brooke Thomas. Of course, I thank my good friend from North Dakota who has really been good to work with. Also, over on our side, I thank Bruce Evans, Rebecca Benn, Leif Fonnesbeck, Ginny James, Ryan Thomas, Michele Gordon, and Ellis Fisher. I thank that staff because they have done yeomen's work. They have worked very long hours in order to pass this bill.

I ask the Senator, do you have any closing remarks?

Mr. President, I ask for third reading.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: General Peter Pace, USMC for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN for reappointment to the grade of Admiral and to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General T. Michael Moseley, USAF for reappointment to the grade of General and to be Chief of Staff of the Air Force; Ambassador Eric S. Edelman to be under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Mr. Daniel R. Stanley to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; and Mr. James A. Rispoli to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2005, at 3:30 p.m., to receive a classified briefing regarding detention operations and interrogation procedures at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday June 29, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Medicaid Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Threatening the Health Care Safety Net.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the

Senate on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 9:50 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the following:

S.J. Res. 15 A bill to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.

S. 374 A bill to provide compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by Pick-Sloan projects along the Missouri River.

S. 113 A bill to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria is deemed to be held in trust.

S. 881 A bill to compensate the Spokane Tribe of Indians for the use of tribal land for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other purposes.

S. 449 A bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and persons born after Dec. 18, 1971, and for other purposes.

H.R. 797/S. 475 A bill to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 and other Acts to improve housing programs for Indians.

S. 623 A bill to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to the City of Richfield, Utah and for other purposes.

S. 598 A bill to reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing.

S. . A bill to condemn certain subsurface rights to land held in trust by the State of Arizona, convey subsurface rights held by BLM, for the Pacsua Yaqui Tribe.

S. A bill to authorize funding for the National Indian Gaming Commission.

S. 1239, A bill to authorize the use of Indian Health Service funds to pay Medicare Part D premiums on behalf of Indians.

S.1231, A bill to provide initial funding for the National Fund for Excellence in American Indian Education previously established by Congress.

S. A bill to require former federal employees who are employed by tribes to adhere to conflict of interest rules.

S. A bill to amend the Tribally Controlled Community College and Universities Assistance Act.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Passport System Can Be Exploited by Criminals and Terrorists.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on National Weather Service- Severe Weather.