Floor Statements

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, CA.

I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.

Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live with a close friend of his late mother.

The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death revoked his legal status in the United States. In addition, Mr. Yamada's

mother was engaged to an American citizen at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have become an American citizen through this marriage.

Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option available to him today is private relief legislation.

For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported from the United States and forced to return to Japan.

First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, he earned a number of awards including being named an Outstanding English Student his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award. His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being responsible, hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable. His role as the Vice- President of the Associated Student Body his senior year is an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his popularity and trustworthiness among his peers. As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the Most Inspirational Player of the Year in Junior Varsity baseball and football, as well as, Varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his admiration by saying that he has seen in Shigeru Yamada the responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds to be virtuous.

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for four years as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes him as an individual full of integrity who understands that as a coach it is important to work as a team player. His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's commute to and from practice was two hours long each way. It takes an individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.

Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is unaware of the nation's current cultural trends. And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. Currently, both of his sisters are in the process of legalizing their immigration status in the United States. His older sister is married to a United States citizen and his younger sister is being adopted by a maternal aunt, who is a United States citizen. Since as all of his family lives in California, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone and everything that he knows. His sister contends that her younger brother would be lost if he had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to speak or read the language.

As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. Robert Hughes, describes him as being an upstanding All-American young man. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.

Currently, Mr. Yamada holds sophomore status at Southwestern Community College. However, he is taking this semester off in order to alleviate his financial burdens by working full time. He had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement, but his plans have recently changed due to his current immigration status dilemma. Until he obtains citizenship, Mr. Yamada will be prohibited from pursuing a career in law enforcement. Due to the circumstances, Mr. Yamada has changed his career goal to that of becoming a high school teacher. Mr. Yamada's commitment to his education is admirable. He could have easily taken a different path but, through his own individual fortitude, he has dedicated himself to his studies so that he can live a better life.

With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in every other sense. I ask you to help right a wrong and grant Mr. Yamada lawful permanent resident status so that he can continue towards his bright future.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada.

I also ask unanimous consent that the three letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 20, and Cindy, age 18, also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three children, Roberto, age 15, Daniel, age 11, and Saray, age 9, are United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two eldest children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused his immigration clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it.

Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S. citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest, is a junior at Fresno Pacific University. She was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to attend college. She attends Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on a full tuition scholarship package and works part-time in the admissions office. She is majoring in international business.

At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely was also president of the Key Club, a community service organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her family.

The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I ask unanimous consent that eight letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline Coats, a 26-year old widow currently living in San Francisco.

Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.

Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt to save two young boys from drowning.

The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring her husband.

Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.

Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.''

Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, CA. Mrs. Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''

The San Francisco and Bay Area community is rallying strong support for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police Department, have all

passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right to remain in the country.

Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.

I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward heroism and good.''

I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.

For these reasons, I offer this private relief immigration bill and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.

I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today private relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei ``Alice'' Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who live in San Bruno, CA.

I have decided to offer private relief immigration bills on their behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much longer.

The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before the immigration laws changed in 1996.

Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States 24 years ago as tourists and established residency in the San Bruno, CA. Because they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face deportation from the United States.

After living here for so many years, removal from the United States would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 15 years old, Bruce, 12 years old, and Eva, 9 years old. Young Wesley suffers from asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety.

The immigration judge who presided over the Liang's case in 1997 concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them.

I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now given the passage of 9 more years.

The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are homeowners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.

Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an immigration judge.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, however, did not act on their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time the immigration laws had significantly changed.

According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.

I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while battling a severe form of post traumatic stress disorder.

According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native country of Laos during the Vietnam war.

Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.

The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he and his family would be treated as second-class citizens.

Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the well-being and future of his children.

Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs.

I also ask unanimous consent that two letters of community support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students.

Title I provides assistance to almost every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high numbers of low- income students, from preschool to high school.

Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail.

This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind.''

While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.

I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible.

During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.

Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds.

In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.

What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their

own definition ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.''

Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.

Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.

The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used-- to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.

The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low- income students are being met.

This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.

Current law on Title I is much too vague.

It says, ``a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''

Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' This is too ambiguous.

The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.

Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement'' meeting.

I believe we should give the Department, States and districts a clearer guidance in law.

This legislation would: Define Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensure that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received . . . for indirect instructional services.''

By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution.

Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.

Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.

Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: Business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.

My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: first, I believe that states must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.

I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.

If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.

It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only about 9 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.

That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.

Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of federal funds to improve academic achievement.

It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the record.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a minimum wage increase that provides American workers a raise with no strings attached. It has been nearly a decade since the minimum wage was last increased. We can no longer afford to delay action, and millions of hard-working Americans deserve better.

The Federal minimum wage today is only $5.15 per hour. Someone who works at this rate for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year takes home less than $11,000 annually far below the poverty line for families.

Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour would impact nearly 13 million Americans, the majority of whom are women, 59 percent, and people of color, 40 percent. Eighty percent of those impacted would be adult workers, and most are full-time employees.

The consequences of nearly a decade of inaction are clear.

Almost 40 million Americans live in poverty, 13 million of whom are children.

Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 would add nearly $4,400 to a minimum wage worker's annual income, representing, for many families, the difference between self-sufficiency or living below the poverty line.

For most Americans, the choice is clear. In the last election, voters in six States Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio supported initiatives to increase their State minimum wages. In fact, 29 States, nearly 60 percent, have a minimum wage above the Federal level.

I am proud that my own State of California has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, at $7.50 per hour, increasing to $8.00 per hour next year. Many California cities and counties stipulate that workers must be paid a living wage, which in some cases guarantees an additional $3 or $4 per hour.

There are two options before the Senate today. This body can act swiftly and stand behind nearly 13 million workers, Or we can delay action, by modifying the legislation before us to include $8.3 billion in tax breaks for small businesses.

Packaging the minimum wage bill with these tax cuts is disadvantageous to businesses and minimum wage workers. Adding a tax package creates procedural hurdles that could significantly delay implementation of this wage increase.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes linking these small business tax breaks to this legislation because many of the tax provisions are only temporary extensions. They do not provide the long-term relief that businesses seek.

Considering the package of small business tax cuts separately would facilitate a more robust discussion of how small businesses the primary job creators in this country can receive genuine relief from the rising costs of operations.

Many small business owners would suffer no adverse impact if the minimum wage were increased. A recent Gallup Poll in the Sacramento Business Journal showed that 86 percent of small business owners surveyed do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage would harm their businesses.

Nearly 75 percent of small business owners thought that a 10 percent minimum wage increase would have no impact on their businesses at all. More than half of those polled thought the minimum wage should actually be increased.

The evidence shows that increasing the minimum wage does not adversely affect the economy. In fact, in Los Angeles and San Francisco, raising wages added stability to many businesses and the local economy.

In San Francisco, turnover for home-care workers fell by 57 percent after the city implemented its living wage policies.

The average job tenure of workers in fast food restaurants increased by 3.5 months.

In Los Angeles, businesses affected by a living wage ordinance had one-third less turnover among low wage earners, and absenteeism declined.

Higher wages improve worker loyalty and increase employee retention, while decreasing employee hiring and training costs.

Let me be clear: I support many of the tax cuts for small businesses. I think they should be considered, with the proper offsets, as part of a separate revenue-neutral tax bill. But they should not be included in this must-pass minimum wage bill.

Ensuring that all American workers receive fair pay for a hard day's work should not be a partisan issue. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation by a vote of 315 to 116, with more than 80 Republicans crossing party lines to support this cause.

Congress has increased the minimum wage nine times since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Only once, in 1996, was a minimum wage increase paired with tax cuts.

The purchasing power of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. The cost of living is up 26 percent since the last minimum wage increase in 1997.

It is unfair to punish hard working people and make them wait for an increase. We must not delay. We must not bog down this bill with procedural tactics.

American workers deserve better. I urge my colleagues to do what is fair and just: Pass a clean minimum wage bill. Let's provide immediate relief to those who need it most.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare.

Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come.

Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective.

A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance.

Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform.

Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance.

The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.''

Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report.

Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean.

Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation.

We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise.

Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock.

I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.''

The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers.

The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law.

Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider.

We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating:

This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I

guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there

has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in

finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a

suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may

well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in

1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and

find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what

happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they

agree about but only about what they differ about. And

something has got to give soon because we do not have the

choice of not resolving this issue.

Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit.

For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income.

For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income.

4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children.

The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started.

While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by

others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid.

So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward.

Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security.

In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006.

And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030.

The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire.

In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019.

The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year.

This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, as the new Congress begins work, I am pleased to join with Senator Domenici in addressing one of the most serious and intractable problems facing the Nation--restoring the long- term fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare.

Today we propose a bipartisan, independent and permanently existing commission to return these essential programs to solid financial footing for generations to come.

Our legislation mandates the periodic, comprehensive review of Social Security and Medicare to ensure their present and future solvency. By a year from the date of enactment, it requires the Commission to devise and recommend to Congress and the President a benefit and revenue structure that allows Social Security and Medicare to become, once again, stable and effective.

A key aspect of the bill is that its mission is ongoing indefinitely. Every five years the Commission returns with new recommendations--small tweaks or larger adjustments, whatever is necessary--to keep these entitlement programs in actuarial balance.

Since 2005, the President, Congress and the Nation have stalemated over the issue of privatizing Social Security. The issue remains contentious. Recent press articles suggest the Administration would be prepared to drop carve out accounts as the price of overall reform.

Meanwhile, the Social Security funding shortfall is projected to balloon to roughly $4.6 trillion over the next 75 years to pay all scheduled benefits. This unfunded obligation has increased by $600 billion alone over the last year. Medicare is in far worse shape, needing $11.3 trillion over the next seventy-five years to close the gap and remain in balance.

The 2006 report from the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security is alarming to say the least. They describe the current path of spending for both as ``problematic'', ``unsustainable,'' ``severe'', and in ``poor fiscal shape.'' In sum the Trustees say that ``the problems of both programs are driven by inexorable demographics, and, in the case of Medicare, inexorable health care cost inflation, and are not likely to be ameliorated by economic growth or mere tinkering with program financing.''

Simple numbers tell the story: growing cash flow deficits will exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 2018, and Social Security reserves will be overcome in 2040, according to the Trustees report.

Our legislation takes a new approach and is bipartisan to the core. Instead of emphasizing the merits of one proposal over another, we wipe the slate clean.

Fifteen experts, some of whom are Members of Congress from the committees of jurisdiction, are appointed. They take a full year to conduct town hall meetings nationwide, assess these trillion dollar programs from top to bottom, and rationalize their cost structure through intensive evaluation.

We advocate an open process, where all American voices can be heard. We have learned in the last two years that these issues effectively surpass the Congress' and President's ability to reach a compromise.

Relying strictly on elected officials to meet privately and out of the public view to negotiate a multi-trillion agreement I believe risks more failure. We have no demonstrated track record since 2005 of being able to achieve bipartisan consensus. And there are no new developments of late that suggest a different outcome than more partisan gridlock.

I know Majority Leader Reid is instructing on certain members of the Senate to gather and discuss these issues in the coming months. I hope it works. But I basically share his outlook for the prospects of a bipartisan deal: ``It's a tremendous long shot. If you were a Las Vegas bookmaker, you'd put the odds pretty [long] for being able to do that.''

The Commission we propose would not be offering one-time solutions that get tossed aside and collect dust. Far from it: the Commission's detailed analysis, nonpartisan recommendations and findings are provided in writing and take the form of legislation that Congress formally considers.

The Senate and House, in turn, through expedited legislative procedures, will hopefully be poised to amend if need be and then enact the changes into law.

Compromise, in the form of increasing payroll tax revenues or other fees and cutting benefits, is the inevitable reality which we face. Senator Domenici and I are focused on creating a pathway to reach that compromise. We do not hold out, today, certain ideas that we believe Commission Members ought to consider.

We rely on their independent expertise and motivation to derive what is best for the Nation. Then we let the chips fall where they may from there.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said two years ago that we had little time to waste in fixing Social Security. He endorsed the notion of establishing a Commission, much like the one he led in 1983 that led to historic changes in the program. His congressional testimony bears repeating:

This is not a hugely difficult problem to solve . . . And I

guess what is missing is the fact that at this stage there

has been a rather low interest in actually joining, in

finding out where some of the agreements are, and I have a

suspicion that when that occurs, that will happen. It may

well be that some mechanism such as that which we employed in

1983 may be a useful mechanism to get groups together and

find out where there are agreements. I tend to think what

happens in these debates is nobody talks about what they

agree about but only about what they differ about. And

something has got to give soon because we do not have the

choice of not resolving this issue.

Chairman Greenspan is absolutely right that it is only a matter of time that we implement Social Security reform. That is because 48 million people, or 1 out of every 6 Americans, depend on it. And by 2050, an astounding 82 million Americans will receive this guaranteed benefit.

For more than 20 percent of retirees, Social Security is it: their only source of income.

For half of those 48 million, Social Security keeps them out of poverty. And for almost two-thirds, Social Security makes up more than half of their total income.

4.8 million widows and widowers rely on Social Security, as do 6.8 million disabled workers and 4 million children.

The long-term challenges are significant. It is not a crisis, we have time to implement gradual reform over time, but we need to get started.

While the current projected shortfall for Social Security amounts to about $4.6 trillion, the fact of the matter is that 100 percent of benefits can be paid until 2040 by some estimates (Social Security Administration) or 2046 by

others (CBO). Beyond that time horizon, 73 percent of benefits can be paid.

So the bottom line is, there is time, the know-how, and the resources to be able to maintain the current system, with phased adjustments occurring over many years to the Social Security Trust Fund.

The key, of course, is coming to a rational consensus--Democrats and Republicans united--in the effort to make Social Security solvent from this day forward.

Most budget experts agree that the Social Security problem pales in comparison to the enormous shortfall facing the Medicare Trust Fund (Part A)--over the next 75 years a total of $11.3 trillion. The various technical estimates are that Medicare is projected to become insolvent far sooner than Social Security.

In fact the most recent Medicare Trustees report confirms that the trust fund will be exhausted in 2018, yet the number of beneficiaries skyrockets upwards--from 42.7 million now, a number which will double by 2030--as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Compounding the problem, the Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare spending will rise to 11 percent of the gross domestic product by 2080, up from 3.21 percent of GDP in 2006.

And the number of those paying into the system gets smaller and smaller: in 2000, 4 workers supported every Medicare beneficiary. That number shrinks to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by 2030.

The plain truth is that surging health care costs need to come under control or Medicare faces a dire situation. Because the program is financed through payroll taxes on working Americans, and general tax revenue, the pressure is building now on working Americans, given the huge demographic changes we expect when Baby Boomers retire.

In closing let me share one pertinent fact from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees and their 2006 report: ``to the extent that changes are delayed or phased in gradually, greater adjustments in scheduled benefits and revenues would be required.'' The time to act is now, and Senator Domenici and I believe that our legislation represents a reasonable and good faith step for curing what ills these vital safety net programs.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill with my colleagues Senators Snowe, Inouye, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, and Collins to close the SUV loophole.

This bill would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards for SUVs and other light duty trucks. It would increase the combined fleet average for all automobiles--SUVs, light trucks and passenger cars--from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2019.

The high price of oil is not a problem we can drill our way out of. Global oil demand is rising. China imports more than 40 percent of its record 6.4 million-barrel-per-day oil demand and its consumption is growing by 7.5 percent per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

India imports approximately 70 percent of its oil, which is projected to rise to more than 90 percent by 2020. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil--which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our finite fuel supplies more wisely.

This legislation is an important first step to limit our Nation's dependence on oil and better protect our environment.

If implemented, closing the SUV Loophole would: save the U.S. 2.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, almost the same amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf.

It would also prevent about 350 million tons of carbon dioxide--the top greenhouse gas and biggest single cause of global warming from being emitted into our atmosphere by 2025. This is an 18 percent reduction, the equivalent of taking 60 million cars--or 50 million cars and light trucks--off the road in one year.

This bill would also save SUV and light duty truck owners hundreds of dollars each year in gasoline costs.

CAFE standards were first established in 1975. At that time, light trucks made up only a small percentage of the vehicles on the road, they were used mostly for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger cars.

Today, our roads look much different, SUVs and light duty trucks comprise more than half of the new car sales in the United States. As a result, the overall fuel economy of our Nation's fleet is the lowest it has been in two decades, because fuel economy standards for these vehicles are so much lower than they are for other passenger vehicles.

The bill we are introducing today would change that. SUVs and other light duty trucks would have to meet the same fuel economy requirements by 2013 that passenger cars meet today.

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, released a report stating that adequate lead time can bring about substantive increases in fuel economy standards. Automakers can meet higher CAFE standards if existing technologies are utilized and included in new models of SUVs and light trucks.

In 2003, the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said he favored an increase in vehicle fuel economy standards beyond the 1.5-mile-per-gallon hike slated to go into effect by 2007. ``We can do better,'' said Jeffrey Runge in an interview with Congressional Green Sheets. ``The overriding goal here is better fuel economy to decrease our reliance on foreign oil without compromising safety or American jobs,'' he said.

With this in mind, we have developed the following phase-in schedule which would follow up on what NHTSA has proposed for the short term and remain consistent with what the NAS report said is technologically feasible over the next decade or so. As a first step, by model year 2010, passenger cars must meet an average fuel economy standard of 29.5 mpg, and SUVs and light trucks must meet 23.5 mpg. By way of comparison, passenger cars in model year 2005 averaged 30 mpg, light trucks averaged 21.8 mpg, and the overall combined fleet average is 25.2 mpg.

The bill also increases the weight limit within which vehicles are bound by CAFE standards to make it harder for automotive manufacturers to build SUVs large enough to become exempted from CAFE standards. Because SUVs are becoming larger and larger, some may become so large that they will no longer qualify as even SUVs anymore.

We are introducing this legislation because we believe that the United States needs to take a leadership role in the fight against global warming.

We have already seen the potential destruction that global warming can cause in the United States.

Snowpacks in the Sierra Nevada are shrinking and will almost entirely disappear by the end of the century, devastating the source of California's water.

Eskimos are being forced inland in Alaska as their native homes on the coastline are melting into the sea.

Glaciers are disappearing in Glacier National Park in Montana. In 100 years, the park has gone from having 150 glaciers to fewer than 30. And the 30 that remain are two-thirds smaller than they once were.

Beyond our borders, scientists are predicting how the impact of global warming will be felt around the globe.

It has been estimated that two-thirds of the glaciers in western China will melt by 2050, seriously diminishing the water supply for the region's 300 million inhabitants. Additionally, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes in Peru is projected to leave the population without an adequate water supply during the summer.

The United States is the largest energy consumer in the world, with 4 percent of the world's population using 25 percent of the planet's energy.

And much of this energy is used in cars and light trucks: 43 percent of the oil we use goes into our vehicles and one-third of all carbon dioxide emissions come from our transportation sector.

The U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the development of more fuel efficient automobiles. Quarterly auto sales reflect that consumers are buying smaller more fuel efficient cars and sales of the big, luxury vehicles that are the preferred vehicle of the American automakers have dropped significantly.

Even SUV sales have slowed. First quarter 2005 deliveries of these vehicles are down compared to the same period last year--for example, sales of the Ford Excursion is down by 29.5 percent, the Cadillac Escalade by 19.9 percent, and the Toyota Sequoia by 12.6 percent.

On the other hand, the Toyota Prius hybrid had record sales in March with a 160.9 percent increase over the previous year.

The struggling U.S. auto market cannot afford to fall behind in the development of fuel efficient vehicles. Our bill sets out a reasonable time frame for car manufacturers to design vehicles that are more fuel efficient and that will meet the growing demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.

We can do this, and we can do this today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, before I propound a unanimous consent request, I would very much like to

thank both leaders. I know this has been a difficult day. I think it has worked out, and I think that is to the good. I hope everyone else who has waited hour after hour understands that the leadership was in negotiations and there is a product of those negotiations.

I, also, thank the ranking member with whom it has been a great pleasure for me to work. Members should know that we are new. Members should know that our staffs are new to the committee and that this is their first bill on the floor. I believe they have done an excellent job, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. It is a kind of baptism of fire, if you will. I say thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc, with the motions to reconsider laid on the table, and that the action thereupon appear separately in the Record. The amendments are: Vitter amendment No. 9; Ensign-Demint amendment No. 98; Coburn amendment No. 51; Feingold amendment No. 31; Feingold amendment No. 33; Durbin amendment No. 77; Obama amendment No. 41; Sanders amendment No. 57; and Coleman-Cardin amendment No. 39, as modified.

I believe this has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I send a manager's package to the desk. It combines a number of technical corrections requested by the Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Indian Affairs Committee. It is concurred in by both sides.

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

Mr. President, there have been a variety of proposals for what has been called an Office of Public Integrity. The Senate voted 67 to 30 against one such proposal last year. Last time, Senators Johnson and Voinovich, the chairs of the Ethics Committee, stood in opposition. This time, the new chairs of the Ethics Committee, Senators Boxer and Cornyn, stand in opposition.

I recognize the strong interest in this issue, especially by Senators

Lieberman, Collins, Obama, Feingold, McCain, and others. I have spoken with Senator Obama about it. I have assured him that we would hold a hearing in the Rules Committee and that we would take a look at this proposal and what might or might not be done.

I will vote against this amendment, and I will see that the Rules Committee and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hold these hearings. They will focus on these proposals and ways of strengthening ethics enforcement in the Senate.

Let me say this now. I do believe we need to take great care in how we do this. Yes, we need to reassure the public that those who run afoul of the Senate rules will be held accountable. But we must make sure this does not simply become a new tool used by political opponents who would seek to manipulate the political process by filing false claims. You can be sure that the minute a claim becomes public, without any verification as to its veracity, and is released to the public, that claim will be a 30-second spot in someone's campaign. That is not what we are about.

We have to also ensure that we do not create an office--with a special prosecutor bound and determined to justify his or her existence by creating an atmosphere of ongoing investigation--that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The Constitution provides:

Each House of Congress may determine the Rules of its

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and,

with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Our Founders knew the importance of this and placed it in article I.

The challenge we face right now is how to do it right and ensure that the tough ethics rules we are putting in place will be vigorously overseen and enforced.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward.

The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a twenty percent decline in labor.

The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops.

The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau.

California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few.

Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them.

The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.

We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.

The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them.

In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.

The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program.

The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status. The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker.

The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements.

The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident.

There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported.

Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.

This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.

Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it.

AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area.

Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard. Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment.

Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded.

The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law.

Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of 3 years is imposed.

Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.

AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.

I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senators Craig, Kennedy, Martinez, Boxer, Voinovich, and several others are once again introducing legislation that will address the chronic labor shortage in our Nation's agricultural industry. This bill is a priority for me and for the tens of thousands of farmers who are currently suffering--and I hope we will move it forward early in this Congress.

The Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act, or AgJOBS, is the product of more than ten years of work. It is a bipartisan bill supported by growers, farmers, and farm workers alike. It passed the Senate last year as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill last spring in the 109th Congress. It is time to move this bill forward.

The agricultural industry is in crisis. Farmers across the Nation report a twenty percent decline in labor.

The result is that there are simply not enough farm workers to harvest the crops.

The Nation's agricultural industry has suffered. If we do not enact a workable solution to the agricultural labor crisis, we risk a national production loss of $5 billion to $9 billion each year, according to the American Farm Bureau.

California, in particular, will suffer. California is the single largest agricultural State in the Nation. California agriculture accounts for $34 billion in annual revenue. There are 76,500 farms that produce half of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts from only 3 percent of the Nation's farmland. California farms produce approximately 350 different crops: pears, walnuts, raisins, lettuce, onions, cotton, just to name a few.

Many of the farmers who grow these crops have been in the business for generations. They farm the land that their parents and their grandparents farmed before them.

The sad consequence of the labor shortage is that many of these farmers are giving up their farms. Some are leaving the business entirely. Others are bulldozing their fruit trees--literally pulling out trees that have been in the family for generations--because they do not have the labor they need to harvest their fruit.

Once the trees are gone, they are replaced by crops that do not require manual labor. And our pears, our apples, our oranges will come from foreign sources. The trend is quite clear. If there is not a means to grow and harvest our produce here, we will import produce from China, from Mexico, from other countries who have the labor they need.

We will put American farmers out of business. And there will be a ripple effect felt throughout the economy: in farm equipment, inputs, packaging, processing, transportation, marketing, lending and insurance. Jobs will be lost and our economy will suffer.

The reality is that Americans have come to rely on undocumented workers to harvest their crops for them.

In California alone, we rely on approximately one million undocumented workers to harvest the crops. The United Farm Workers estimate that undocumented workers make up as much as 90 percent of the farm labor payroll. Americans simply will not do the work. It is hard, stooped labor, requiring long and unpredictable hours. Farm workers must leave home and travel from farm to farm to plant, prune, and harvest crops according to the season. We must come to terms with the fact that we rely on an undocumented migrant work force. We must bring those workers out of the shadows and create a legal and enforceable means to provide labor for agriculture. That realization is what led to the long and careful negotiations creating AgJOBS.

The AgJOBS bill is a two part bill. Part one identifies and deals with those undocumented agricultural workers who have been working in the United States for the past 2 years or more. Part two creates a more usable H-2A Program, to implement a realistic and effective guest worker program.

The first step requires undocumented agricultural workers to apply for a ``blue card'' if they can demonstrate that they have worked in American agriculture for at least 150 workdays over the past 2 years. The blue card entitles the worker to a temporary legal resident status. The blue card itself is encrypted and machine readable; it is tamper and counterfeit resistant, and contains biometric identifiers unique to the farm worker.

The second step requires that a blue card holder work in American agriculture for an additional 5 years for at least 100 workdays a year, or 3 years at 150 workdays a year. Blue card workers would have to pay a $500 fine. The workers can travel abroad and reenter the United States and they may work in other, non-agricultural jobs, as long as they meet the agricultural work requirements.

The blue card worker's spouse and minor children, who already live in the United States, may also apply for a temporary legal status and identification card, which would permit them to work and travel. The total number of blue cards is capped at 1.5 million over a five year period and the program sunsets after 5 years. At the end of the required work period, the blue card worker may apply for a green card to become a legal permanent resident.

There are also a number of safeguards. If a blue card worker does not apply for a green card, or does not fulfill the work requirements, that individual can be deported.

Likewise, a blue card holder who commits a felony, three misdemeanors, or any crime that involves bodily injury, the threat of serious bodily injury, or harm to property in excess of $500, cannot get a green card and can be deported.

This program, for the first time, allows us to identify those hundreds of thousands of farm workers who now work in the shadows. It requires the farm workers to come forward and to be identified in exchange for the right to work and live legally in the United States. And it gives farmers the legal certainty they need to hire the workers they need. The program also modifies the H-2A guest worker program so that it realistically responds to our agricultural needs.

Currently, the H-2A program is bureaucratic, unresponsive, expensive, and prone to litigation. Farmers cannot get the labor when they need it.

AgJOBS offers a much-needed reform of the outdated system. The labor certification process, which often takes 60 days or more, is replaced by an ``attestation'' process. The employer can file a fax-back application form agreeing to abide by the requirements of the H-2A program. Approval should occur in 48 to 72 hours. The interstate clearance order to determine whether there are U.S. workers who can qualify for the jobs is replaced by a requirement that the employer file a job notification with the local office of the State Employment Security Agency. Advertising and positive recruitment must take place in the local labor market area.

Agricultural associations can continue to file applications on behalf of members. The statutory prohibition against ``adversely affecting'' U.S. workers is eliminated. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is instead frozen for 3 years, and thereafter indexed by a methodology that will lead to its gradual replacement with a prevailing wage standard. Employers may elect to provide a housing allowance in lieu of housing if the governor determines that there is adequate rental housing available in the area of employment.

Inbound and return transportation and subsistence is required on the same basis as under the current program, except that trips of less than 100 miles are excluded, and workers whom an employer is not required to provide housing are excluded.

The motor vehicle safety standards for U.S. workers are extended to H-2A workers. Petitions for admission of H-2A workers must be processed and the consulate or port of entry notified within 7 days of receipt. Requirements are the same as current law.

Petitions extending aliens' stay or changing employers are valid upon filing. Employers may apply for the admission of new H-2A workers to replace those who abandoned their work or are terminated for cause and the Department of Homeland Security is required to remove H-2A aliens who abandoned their work. H-2A visas will be secure and counterfeit resistant.

A new limited Federal right of action is available to foreign workers to enforce the economic benefits required under the H-2A program, and any benefits expressly offered by the employer in writing. A statute of limitations of 3 years is imposed.

Finally, lawsuits in State court under State contract law alleging violations of the H-2A program requirements and obligations are expressly preempted. Such State court lawsuits have been the venue of choice for litigation against H-2A employers in recent years.

AgJOBS is the one part of the immigration bill about which there is uniform agreement. Everyone knows that agriculture in America is supported by undocumented workers. As immigration enforcement tightens up, and increasing numbers of people are prevented from crossing the borders or are being deported, the result is our crops go unharvested. We are faced today with a very practical dilemma and one that is easy to solve. The legislation has been vetted over and over again. Senator Craig, I, and a multitude of other Senators have sat down with the growers, with the farm bureaus, with the chambers, with everybody who knows agriculture, and they have all signed off on the AgJOBS bill. This is our opportunity to solve a real problem.

I ask my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition and support this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding, initially, the Senator's amendment had a grandfather clause. Does it now contain that grandfather clause?

Madam President, may I ask a second question?

So anyone who doesn't meet the specific confines of the Senator's bill would be forced to lose their job; is that correct?

Madam President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. SALAZAR addressed the Chair.

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

Madam President, I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Vitter-Inhofe amendment, amendment No. 3. I think it is one thing if the amendment is prospective and doesn't affect people. I think it is another thing when it is retroactive. I believe our side would accept

the amendment if it were, in fact, prospective.

The amendment has a complicating factor in addition to that; that is, there is a prohibition against any official contact with any spouse of a Member who is a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. That is not any lobbying contact, it is official contact. Now, what is official contact? Does this mean the spouse, if he or she happens to have been a lobbyist for a substantial period of time, cannot attend the Supreme Court dinner which just took place? That could be interpreted as an official contact. Is it an official contact if the individual calls the scheduler of her husband's or his wife's office and asks for some information on the schedule? I am surprised-- and I didn't know this--that this amendment has the words ``official contact.'' You can be sure that even if it said: Well, it is not an official contact, that someone will make the argument: Oh yes, it is an official contact if you attend the Supreme Court dinner with your spouse.

Again, I would repeat, this is retroactive legislation. We know it affects people in this body who have worked, helped support their families. I don't recall another time when we have enacted this kind of legislation.

So it concerns me, and it concerns me if it is overly repressive, such as using the words ``official contact.'' I am puzzled as to why, when the majority leader offered that if it had a grandfather clause, we would accept it, it wasn't taken, unless the intent is essentially to sever people from their ability to have anything to do with this body, whether it is simply as a spouse or as a professional.

So I have some concerns about this amendment, and I wanted to take this opportunity to express them, and hopefully the author will respond.

I certainly will.

Will the Senator yield, please?

Because I said ``presently employed,'' if I may, through the Chair. To clarify that, I said anybody ``presently employed.'' We know it affects people. We know it would affect people in the future. We also know it affects people presently employed.

If the Senator will yield for a moment.

Through the Chair, on line 5, if you substituted ``lobbying'' for ``official,'' I think that would do it.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, if I may, I thank the Senator. Perhaps our staffs can get together directly and take a look at this. I appreciate it.

Madam President, I would like to make a very few comments in response to the ranking member's comments, and then I know the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to speak on another matter, so I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.

Thank you very much. I know that Senator Lieberman is going to speak on the specific provisions of section 220 in the base bill, S.1, at a later time. However, I would like to share with this body what I understand to be the facts. If I understand correctly what is attempted in the underlying bill, the goal is to compel disclosure, registration and reporting for those companies, individuals or organizations that say, We have a cause, this is the cause; we want to establish a grassroots lobbying organization. They go and hire organizations to get going and spent more than 25,000 a quarter. They say go ahead and organize a movement, but nobody ever knows who they are or who funds them. This is called astroturf lobbying. Some people refer these groups as ``sham'' or ``front'' organizations. I am not going to say they necessarily are, but they have been referred to as such. They seek to influence legislation through mass media, using campaign and issue ads, letters, phone calls, think-tank public policy papers, and public polls.

The problem is, these organizations are hired guns funded by undisclosed special interest corporations and public policy firms. They conduct grassroots organization lobbying efforts which are often very misleading or in some cases, deceptive. For example, an oil company hires a sham organization to promote the benefits of alternative fuels to big oil, or a cigarette company hires a front group to lobby for smoke-free environment--or whatever the popular cause may be. They go out to organize, make lobby contacts, and conduct other lobby activities on specific issues. Unlike genuine grassroots groups that tend to be money poor but people rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people poor and money rich.

Section 220 of the base bill contains the provisions on disclosure of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying. I am the first one to say these provisions could be more clearly written. Nonetheless, the section's goal is to close the loophole in current law that allows these groups to engage in lobbying contacts without any public disclosure or reporting whatsoever--like the paid lobbying contacts and efforts of Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed.

The bill recognizes this increased type of lobbying--paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying--and creates new disclosure and reporting rules for such activities. It makes clear that efforts by an organization to contact its own members as part of a grassroots lobbying campaign are not covered and are unaffected by these provisions unless some outside group paid the organization to do so.

The bill also requires a $50,000 quarterly threshold as a precondition of registration. This means that small and truly local efforts are not covered.

I do not agree with the comments made by the ranking member about this section 220. Non-profits will continue to be able to lobby under current

tax law that requires threshold disclosure and reporting. However, private sector groups and their paid lobbyists are not currently required to disclose, register or report and therefore would be under section 220. So this is the differentiation between the two groups.

The provisions would create a balanced playing field by opposing a sham grassroots lobbying operation while protecting legitimate grassroots lobbying organizations. This in essence is the purpose. If it does survive consideration here, we will take another look at it in conference with respect to narrow definitions, registration and the reporting trigger thresholds. I do believe if somebody goes out and creates one of these groups, pours a lot of money into it and then hires people for grassroots lobbying purposes, then this group should be required to disclose and report so the public knows exactly who the group is and who is financing the group. Is it an undisclosed oil company or is it really a legitimate Citizens for Alternative Fuels to Oil? I think that it is important to determine the credibility and legitimacy of these organizations involved in grassroots lobbying.

I know the ACLU is opposed to it. The ACLU is a group that has been around for a long time. I don't see them being affected by this at all because they would be covered under this other section of the law. I offer these comments in the interests of the purpose of section 220 in this legislation, which I think is bona fide, helpful, and overdue. Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

I beg your pardon. I thought you did.

Mr. President, I want to point out, I was on the floor when this item was discussed, when the Senator from New Hampshire offered his line-item veto amendment. I was also on the floor when Senator Conrad, who is our side's budget expert, came forward and debated it.

There was a rather fulsome debate. I want to recount what Senator Conrad said about his belief about the amendment, that not only does it raise serious constitutional concerns, but it would allow the President to unilaterally block enacted funding, even if Congress rejects a proposed rescission. In addition, rather than strengthening fiscal discipline, the amendment could lead to more spending, not less. He pointed out how it could be used to eliminate entire new programs or improvements to benefits such as Medicare and Social Security. The President would have a year after a bill's enactment to propose a rescission. The President could package rescissions as he or she wishes and could combine rescissions that have been enacted in several different pieces of legislation. Senators would be forced to vote on the package with little opportunity for public notice or input and no opportunity to offer amendments, nor would there be any opportunity to filibuster proposed rescissions. The new power would make it much easier for a President to eliminate new Medicare or Social Security benefits to which he objects.

Now, I agree very much with what the majority leader said. This is a very problematic amendment. It was debated on the floor of the Senate. It needs further refinement if anybody is going to move ahead with it. Clearly, it is a major amendment. Clearly, it is a real problem for our side. But for the minority to take down the bill over this amendment when the amendment is not germane to the bill, when I have tried very hard to keep matters that are not within the scope of the bill off the bill, including a matter I myself very much wanted to present, I think makes no sense.

The minority leader pointed out that this bill passed before, 2 years ago, by a vote of 90 to 8. The whole point of this legislation is to show that the two sides can come together, be bipartisan, and enact a bill that will bring about ethics, lobbying, and earmark reform. And we have done that.

As Senator Bennett, the ranking member, and I have sat on this floor, there has been ample time for Members to bring their amendments to the floor. I assure you that there has been a lot of time when we have just sat here in a quorum call. To allow this bill to be pulled down at this time is just a special matter of some kind of pique, when we know that the line-item veto amendment is extraordinarily problematic and deserves another venue, deserves more scrutiny, and should take some time before it is passed in any way, shape, or form.

So I am fully in support of what the majority leader had to say. It makes no sense for the other side to take down this bill over it. I hope the proposal made by the majority leader will be accepted. I believe he will keep his word. I will help in any way I possibly can to see that that is, in fact, the case. But we are so close to getting this bill done, and it has some momentous things in it that represent a total change of the way these bodies operate, and they are important, significant, and timely. We ought to pass this bill. We ought to show the American people that we can work together, Republicans and Democrats, for a common purpose. So I just want to say that after a week and a half, I am profoundly disappointed that this has come about. I really thought we were going to be able to work together and pass a strong, bipartisan bill. And, in fact, most of the amendments have passed by huge majorities. I think there have only been two that have been relatively close.

I urge the Republican side to reconsider. There are so many positive elements of this bill, and the American people will be so shortchanged if we cannot solve whatever problem there is between us and pass a bill that we voted on 90 to 8 some time ago, which has even been strengthened by some of the eight members who voted against it because they didn't think it was strong enough. This is a very strong measure.

Those of us who will work in conference will work to smooth out any bumps. We will work in an open way, and no side will be shut out of the conference. I pledge it will be a collegial conference. This is our opportunity to set an agenda for the 110th Congress. Please, please, please, let us not reject this.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Maybe I am misinterpreting something. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair, I thought what was said was that if the Senator from New Hampshire doesn't get a vote on his amendment, that his side will vote ``no'' on cloture. That was clearly what I heard. Am I wrong?

Mr. President, I will tell the Senator what is wrong with it.

The amendment is a very complicated amendment. It is impossible to understand, it is a lengthy amendment, and all of the reverberations. I contend and say that it is out of the scope of this bill, and we hope to keep the bill away from these kinds of contentious matters but pass those items within the scope of the bill. I thought there was general agreement with that position. I thought the

Senator would recognize, based on the debate Senator Gregg had with Senator Conrad that there were real questions with the amendment that took further study. My impression was the Senator from New Hampshire was willing to go through that process at the time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Carper to introduce the Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act.

Today, we are introducing the first of five bills to address the number one environmental issue facing this planet--global warming.

This bill establishes a national cap and trade system over the electricity sector. It will reduce emissions from this sector by 25 percent by 2020.

What distinguishes this bill is that it has the support of 6 major energy companies.

Together, these companies operate in 42 States and produce approximately 150,000 megawatts of energy. This is greater than 15 percent of the U.S. electricity market.

These companies include, first, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Corporation, which is the parent of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. PG&E is California's largest utility and serves approximately 1 in every 20 Americans. PG&E Corporation currently owns approximately 6,500 megawatts of generation.

Second, Calpine, which operates in 20 States and Canada, generating 26,000 megawatts of energy.

Third, Florida Power & Light, which operates in 26 States, generating more than 30,000 megawatts.

Fourth, Entergy, which operates in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, generating approximately 30,000 megawatts.

Fifth, Exelon, which operates in Illinois and Pennsylvania, generating 38,000 megawatts of energy.

Sixth, Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the largest provider of energy in New Jersey, generating approximately 15,000 megawatts.

These companies' support is greatly appreciated, and I think it signals a new willingness in the energy industry to seriously tackle global warming.

This bill is just the beginning of a major program. Over the next weeks and months, we will also be introducing a cap and trade bill for the industrial sector; a bill that increases fuel economy standards by ten miles per gallon over the next ten years; a bill to promote bio- diesel and E-85; and other low carbon fuels and an energy efficiency bill modeled after California's program.

This is an ambitious agenda, but I believe it is the right way to go if we are to slow global warming.

A great debate has raged in the halls of Congress, in academia, and in the field over the past two decades.

At issue were three fundamental questions: First, is the earth warming? Second, if so, is the warming caused by human activity? And third, can it be stopped?

Over the past few years, a consensus has been forged. An overwhelming body of evidence has been gathered. And, an inescapable conclusion has been reached: The earth is warming. The warming is caused by human activity, namely the combustion of fossil fuels.

It cannot be stopped, because carbon dioxide does not dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, or 50 years or more.

When we pick up the newspaper each day we see the results. We read about ice sheets the size of small nations breaking off the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic. We read about polar bears committing acts of cannibalism, something unknown in recent memory. We read about species disappearing, seas rising, coral reefs dying, and glaciers melting.

But, all this dire news does not mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. If we act now, and if we act with purpose, the most serious consequences can be averted. Global warming can be contained to 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit.

But if we do not act, and temperatures spike by 5 degrees or more, the world around us will change forever. There's no going back.

The question becomes what can we do? I've spent the last year trying to answer this question. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no single answer, no silver bullet, no one thing to turn the tide. But rather, we need many answers in many different areas.

And more importantly, we need people of common purpose, working together, to find innovative solutions. And that's why we're here today.

As I was searching for answers, I picked up the phone and called PG&E Corporation's CEO, Peter Darbee. I said, ``Peter, would you help me out on Global Warming legislation?''

To his immense credit, Peter went back, studied the issue, and said ``You're right. Something must be done.'' And he's been terrific. He's helped at every step of the way.

It means so much to me that PG&E, Calpine, Florida Power and Light, and all the companies that comprise the Clean Energy Group's Clean Air Policy Initiative have endorsed the legislation we are introducing today.

This is the most aggressive global warming bill that industry has supported to date. And I want to thank the CEOs of these companies today for their courage and leadership in taking this step.

Here's what the bill would do. The bill would establish a cap and trade program for the electricity sector, which is the single largest piece of the global warming puzzle, accounting for 33 percent of all U.S. emissions.

First, the bill would a cap at 2006 levels in 2011--a 6 percent reduction from anticipated levels of greenhouse gases from the electric sector.

In 2015, it would ratchet the cap down to 2001 levels--a 16 percent reduction from anticipated levels.

In 2016, the bill would reduce the cap further to 1 percent below 2001 levels. And, from 2017 to 2019 it would require additional annual 1 percent reductions.

By 2020, emissions would be reduced 25 percent below anticipated levels.

And after that, emissions will be reduced even further--by an additional 1.5 percent a year and potentially more, if the EPA, based on scientific evidence, believes that more needs to be done to avert the most dire consequences of global warming.

That's the cap.

The trade part of the bill gives companies flexibility to embrace new technologies, encourage innovation, and promote green practices--not just in this area, but across the economy.

As I said, this bill is only one part of the answer. One piece of the puzzle.

Congress has a window of opportunity to act. If we act boldly and quickly, then perhaps we can make a difference.

But if we resort to the feuding which has characterized past Congresses, our world will be the poorer for it. I think there is but one choice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.