Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to advise that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a business meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the Business Meeting is to consider pending legislation, and the nomination of Peter B. Lyons, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy).

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 7, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to review Department of Energy biofuel programs and biofuel infrastructure issues, and to consider S. 187, the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Amanda_Kelly@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley (majority) at (202) 224-4756, Amanda Kelly (majority) at (202) 224-6836, or Brian Hughes (minority) at (202) 224-7555.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 31, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing will be to hear testimony on three items:

S. 629, to improve hydropower, and for other purposes.

S. 630, to promote marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy research and development, and for other purposes.

Title I, subtitle D of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462 from 111th Congress).

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Meagan_Gins@energy .senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Tanya Trujillo at (202) 224- 5479 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

I want to take a few minutes to discuss high oil and gasoline prices. I think when we get home to our respective States this next week, we are going to find that many of the people we represent are understandably concerned about the rising price of gasoline at the pump. They have good reason to be concerned.

Senator Murkowski and I hosted a Senate-wide briefing on Tuesday afternoon with three top oil industry analysts. We had Dr. Richard Newell, the head of the Energy Information Administration; Mr. Bob McNally, who was part of the Bush administration's White House team on energy markets; Mr. Frank Verastro, who is the head of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. They gave us their insights and explanations as to what is causing the rise in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Let me go through four charts to try to summarize what they told us at that briefing. I think it is very useful information for my colleagues, and anybody else who is interested in the subject.

This first chart is labeled ``Gasoline Prices Reflect the Cost of Crude Oil.'' A fundamental truth, which they all subscribe to, is that the primary driver of the price of gasoline at the pump is in fact the price of crude oil on world markets. This chart demonstrates that. It shows the price trends since 2005 for gasoline; that is the yellow line on the chart. It shows the price of crude oil; that is the green line. While some past gasoline price spikes can be attributed to phasing out the additive MTBE, for the last 3 years gasoline price movements have tracked global crude oil prices. So the idea that our gasoline prices are high today because of some particular action the Obama administration has taken is not supported by the facts.

The reasons for the current crude oil price increase are equally straightforward. In listening to each of the analysts highlight the factors he thought were important in explaining why crude oil prices are at the levels we have not seen since 2008, I was struck by two explanations advanced in many of the political speeches in Washington and around the country about oil and gas prices. Frankly, the conclusions, or the allegations, or the arguments made in those political speeches did not comport with what the analysts told us.

First, none of the experts who talked to us highlighted the administration's permitting process in the Gulf of Mexico as being a significant factor in determining world oil markets. I asked Dr. Newell whether the current pace of permitting had any implication for the

Energy Information Administration's short-term forecast. His answer was refreshingly direct; he said, ``No.'' I will point out that neither of his co-panelists disagreed with that conclusion.

Second, any anticipated Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gas emissions at refineries was not included in any of the presentations as a driver behind the current increase in prices. In fact, more broadly, neither the EPA nor any kind of U.S. regulations were discussed as important to understanding world oil prices. I know some of my colleagues remain concerned that we have not built a new refinery in the United States since the 1970s. I assure them that the data suggests that their concerns are not well-founded at this particular point. Demand for refined products is believed to have peaked in the United States. At the moment, 17 percent of our existing refining capacity in this country stands idle, and that is not because of environmental regulations; it is because demand for refined products has come down. In my opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be debating whether we need new refineries, when we are not using the capacity we already have in existing refineries.

Having explored those factors that are not influencing oil price movements, let me discuss factors that are contributing to increased oil and gasoline prices.

The bulk of the discussion at this briefing we had on Tuesday about high oil prices was about what is going on in the Middle East and North Africa. This chart depicts what happened to the price of oil. This says ``U.S. Oil Prices, January through March 2011.'' From the beginning of this year, until the current time, I think it is obvious that the major force driving oil prices is the instability we have seen in the Middle East and North Africa.

When the world's key oil-producing and exporting region--which is the Middle East and North Africa--is unstable, world oil markets are also unstable.

When political unrest threatens major chokepoints in the world oil transit routes, world oil markets react as they have.

When a member of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, stops exporting oil, which has virtually occurred in the case of Libya, world oil markets react.

Also, when there are fears that a nearby neighbor, and a close ally of Saudi Arabia, home of the world's largest oil production capacity, begins to have political upheavals, that raises tensions in world oil markets as well.

So as you can see from this chart, oil prices are very sensitive to these kinds of developments. Oil prices went up as regime change was realized in Egypt, amid concerns about access to the Suez Canal. Prices quickly came down again as it looked increasingly unlikely that traffic through the canal would be disrupted.

Then Libya became the first major oil-exporting country to be affected by the wave of popular uprisings spreading throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and oil prices reacted immediately, indicating market concerns that the situation might get worse before it got better. It, indeed, has worsened. We have virtually all Libyan oil exports terminated or stopped or suspended. Sanctions against Qadhafi's government, combined with chaos on the ground in Libya, have driven Libya's exports to near zero. There is little hope for improvement, so far, in the near future.

We are just beginning to face a potential further escalation of tensions in the region. On Monday, of course, Saudi Arabia sent troops across the causeway onto the island neighbor Bahrain. This adds to world tension.

World oil markets have reacted to this tension with expectations--and I am avoiding using the more politically loaded term ``speculation,'' although I do believe that word is appropriate--that the situation is at risk of getting worse before it gets better.

Into this uncertain environment, we now have a new source of even greater uncertainty. The earthquake that has plagued the island nation of Japan, the ensuing tsunami, and the nuclear disaster that struck Japan--all of that has introduced the possibility that the world's third largest economy might be consuming less oil in the near future than was earlier assumed.

Worldwide markets have again reacted, this time by falling to under $100 per barrel as we try to better understand the size and the scope of the disaster our Japanese friends and allies are facing.

What can Congress do to help ease the burden of high prices for U.S. consumers when oil prices are determined mostly outside our borders, as I think they clearly have been?

A realistic, responsible answer has to be focused on becoming less vulnerable to oil price changes over the medium and the long term. By doing so, we become less vulnerable by using less oil.

I believe increased oil production can play a significant role in world oil markets. The United States has fairly modest resources compared to much of the world. Our base of proven reserves is small. Many people have observed that the United States has less than 2 percent of the world's proven reserves.

Despite what economists and analysts agree is a relatively modest resource oil base, the oil and gas industry in the United States has led the world in developing state-of-the-art technology for exploration and production. Our companies are continuing to get more oil out of the ground and into world oil markets than any of us could have believed was possible. To use a boxing metaphor, we are punching above our weight in oil and gas production thanks to the technology lead our companies have developed.

According to the Energy Information Administration, oil production in North Dakota has risen by 150 percent since 2005. That is all from the Bakken shale formation. This is due to the advent and application of new drilling technology. It is a success story that we all can celebrate.

Let me talk about this third chart. Oil production is up strongly across the United States in the last few years. This chart demonstrates that current increases in oil production are a significant change from what we have seen in the last several decades. We have not had to repeal any environmental laws to achieve this or change the protections that apply on public lands.

Let's not forget that even with U.S. production strongly increasing oil prices have also been increasing. While domestic oil production plays an important role in ensuring the energy security of the country, its contribution to the world oil balance is just not sufficient to bring global oil prices down. It is, therefore, not a complete answer to the high oil and gas prices that tax our consumers and threaten our country's economic health.

This leads me to conclude that the key to reducing our vulnerability to world oil prices and volatility is for us to find ways to use less oil. We need to diversify our sources of transportation fuel. We need to set ourselves on the right path, as we did when we passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That law required us to make our vehicles more efficient and to shift toward relying more on renewable fuel.

This final chart shows the Energy Information Administration's long- term forecasts for U.S. dependence on imported oil as predicted prior to the passage of that 2007 bill, and what they now predict it is after the passage and implementation of that bill.

There are two main features of this graph that I think are noteworthy. First, prior to the enactment of this bill in 2007, the Energy Information Administration had been predicting that U.S. reliance on imported oil would continue to increase. In large part, because of the biofuels and the fuel efficiency policies that we included in that act, the latest forecast shows our reliance on imported oil probably peaked, in fact, in 2005, and is now going down and is expected to continue going down for the rest of this forecast period, which is out to year 2035.

Second, the amount of oil we now will not need to import from today to 2035--that is, the oil that we will be able to save because of the Energy Independence and Security Act we passed in 2007--amounts to about 26 billion barrels. That compares to the previous forecast.

What I am saying is, the difference between the blue line, which is the earlier projection, and the red line, when we take that out to 2035, the total oil involved there is 26 billion barrels. This amount is greater than the total U.S. proven oil reserves, which are estimated at 23 billion barrels. I hope we

can all agree this has been a significant success.

How do we continue on this path toward reducing our oil dependence? I will conclude by highlighting three areas, three key goals I hope we can focus on in the Senate in the coming weeks.

First, we need to enable further expansion of our renewable fuel industry, which is currently facing infrastructure and financing constraints.

Second, we need to move forward the timeline for market penetration by electric vehicles.

Finally, third, we need to make sure we use natural gas vehicles in as many applications as makes sense based on that technology.

Every barrel of oil we displace from the transportation sector and we, therefore, do not need to consume in the United States makes our economy stronger--not to mention our personal pocketbooks--and less vulnerable to the volatility of the current marketplace.

We need to keep drilling. We are good at that. It is helpful to have more supplies on the world market. I am not arguing against that. But at the same time, we need to recognize that the long-term solution to this challenge is to move away from such great dependence on oil. This is a strategic vision President George W. Bush, who previously had worked in the oil industry, clearly articulated in his 2006 State of the Union Address. We subsequently proved in Congress, in 2007, the year after that State of the Union Address, that we have the ability to make significant changes in our energy consumption and that it is possible to mobilize a bipartisan consensus to do so.

The bipartisan path we laid out in the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 is the right approach. As part of whatever bipartisan approach we take to energy in the weeks and months ahead, we need to continue moving in this same direction.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 343 a bill to amend Title I of PL 99-658 regarding the Compact of Free Association between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Palau, to approve the results of the 15-year review of the Compact, including the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Palau following the Compact of Free Association Section 432 Review, to appropriate funds for the purposes of the amended PL 99-658 for fiscal years ending on or before September 30, 2024, and to carry out the agreements resulting from that review.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Abigail_Campbell @energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Al Stayman or Abigail Campbell.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleague and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Lisa Murkowski, in re-introducing, by request, legislation to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands, CNMI, that would give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands.

This bill is identical to H.R. 934 that was considered in the 111th Congress and which passed the House on July 15, 2009 and was reported by the Committee on May 6, 2010. Enactment of this legislation is time- sensitive because there is currently no Federal or local administrative regime in place to manage the lands from the mean high-tide line out to 3 miles surrounding the 14 islands of the CNMI. As a result, development and other near shore activities are on hold, or are conducted under a cloud of legal uncertainty.

I refer those interested in additional information on this proposal to Senate Report 111-197. Included in that report, is the CBO estimate which states that enacting H.R. 934 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is again a cosponsor of this bill.

For those not familiar with this area, the Valles Caldera in Northern New Mexico is one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States, the other two being Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA. Spanning more than 100,000 acres, the caldera contains lush and expansive grassland valleys, ponderosa pines in the foothills and mixed conifer forests in the higher elevations of the volcanic domes and peaks. Numerous cultural and archaeological sites are scattered throughout the landscape that provides quality habitat to elk, trout, golden and bald eagles, and myriad other species. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.

More recently in 2000, the Valles Caldera Preservation Act authorized the Federal Government to acquire the property and established the Valles Caldera Trust--an independent government corporation led by a board of trustees appointed by the President whose mission is to provide for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources. The Trust is also directed to manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after fifteen years.

While the individual board members have done their best to fulfill the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term management of the Preserve. These issues have been laid out at length in two GAO reports, during the hearing we held on this legislation in the 111th Congress, and in previous statements I have made on the subject.

In weighing the various alternatives, the conclusion was reached that management by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission of protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, it would also best serve the public's desire for increased public access, balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique cultural and natural resources.

Senator Udall and I first introduced this legislation during the 111th Congress, during which time the bill received a hearing in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was reported out favorably by that Committee. The reported legislation, which is what we are introducing today, incorporated the many comments we received during the hearing process. This includes improvements to the provisions on hunting and fishing and cattle grazing as well as changes made based on recommendations by tribal governments. Other stakeholder comments, including those from the friends group, Los Amigos de Valles Caldera, led to modifications that will ensure the ecological restoration of the Preserve remains a priority under Park Service management. I also appreciated the valuable comments we received from the staff at the Valles Caldera Trust who remain steadfast in their commitment to the highest management standards at the Preserve.

Beyond these changes, however, the original framework and intent of the legislation remains the same. The existing character of the Preserve would be maintained and protections for tribal cultural and religious sites would be strengthened. The Park Service would manage the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural resources, while increasing public access and continuing to permit hunting and fishing and grazing. The National Park Service would also establish a science and education program similar to the highly successful program created by the Trust.

While the full Senate was unable to take action on this bill during the last Congress, I remain hopeful that we will find an opportunity during this one to bring it before the Senate for consideration. Public support in my State remains very high for the Park Service to manage this unique resource, and it is my hope that the enactment of this legislation will allow more Americans as well as future generations to enjoy this special place.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that would transfer administrative jurisdiction of the Valles Caldera National Preserve from the Valles Caldera Trust to the National Park Service. I am pleased that my colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall, is again a cosponsor of this bill.

For those not familiar with this area, the Valles Caldera in Northern New Mexico is one of only three supervolcanoes in the United States, the other two being Yellowstone, WY, and Long Valley, CA. Spanning more than 100,000 acres, the caldera contains lush and expansive grassland valleys, ponderosa pines in the foothills and mixed conifer forests in the higher elevations of the volcanic domes and peaks. Numerous cultural and archaeological sites are scattered throughout the landscape that provides quality habitat to elk, trout, golden and bald eagles, and myriad other species. In 1975, the Valles Caldera received formal recognition as an outstanding and nationally significant geologic resource when it was designated a National Natural Landmark.

More recently in 2000, the Valles Caldera Preservation Act authorized the Federal Government to acquire the property and established the Valles Caldera Trust--an independent government corporation led by a board of trustees appointed by the President whose mission is to provide for public access and protection of the Preserve's natural and cultural resources. The Trust is also directed to manage the Preserve in a manner that would achieve financial self-sustainability after fifteen years.

While the individual board members have done their best to fulfill the original legislative directives, time has shown in my opinion that this management framework is not the best suited for the long-term management of the Preserve. These issues have been laid out at length in two GAO reports, during the hearing we held on this legislation in the 111th Congress, and in previous statements I have made on the subject.

In weighing the various alternatives, the conclusion was reached that management by the National Park Service--an agency with a mission of protecting natural, historic, and cultural resources while also providing for public enjoyment of those resources--is more appropriate for the long-term future of the Valles Caldera. In my view, it would also best serve the public's desire for increased public access, balanced with the need to protect and interpret the Preserve's unique cultural and natural resources.

Senator Udall and I first introduced this legislation during the 111th Congress, during which time the bill received a hearing in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and was reported out favorably by that Committee. The reported legislation, which is what we are introducing today, incorporated the many comments we received during the hearing process. This includes improvements to the provisions on hunting and fishing and cattle grazing as well as changes made based on recommendations by tribal governments. Other stakeholder comments, including those from the friends group, Los Amigos de Valles Caldera, led to modifications that will ensure the ecological restoration of the Preserve remains a priority under Park Service management. I also appreciated the valuable comments we received from the staff at the Valles Caldera Trust who remain steadfast in their commitment to the highest management standards at the Preserve.

Beyond these changes, however, the original framework and intent of the legislation remains the same. The existing character of the Preserve would be maintained and protections for tribal cultural and religious sites would be strengthened. The Park Service would manage the Preserve to protect and preserve its natural and cultural resources, while increasing public access and continuing to permit hunting and fishing and grazing. The National Park Service would also establish a science and education program similar to the highly successful program created by the Trust.

While the full Senate was unable to take action on this bill during the last Congress, I remain hopeful that we will find an opportunity during this one to bring it before the Senate for consideration. Public support in my State remains very high for the Park Service to manage this unique resource, and it is my hope that the enactment of this legislation will allow more Americans as well as future generations to enjoy this special place.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the damage that would be done if H.R. 1 were to become law, and specifically to talk about a few areas I have been paying particular attention to: science and technology, for one, particularly related to energy policy; second, border security and law enforcement; as well as education.

To me, this is not a question of whether there should be cuts in our Federal budget. Clearly, there should be cuts. But the real issue here is whether we should be smart about where we make those cuts. To me, it is clear that H.R. 1 does not represent smart policy about where to make those cuts. It represents a plan to mindlessly cut funding during the remaining 5 months of the current fiscal year in order to send some kind of message to the world that we are serious about deficit reduction. In my view, H.R. 1 sends a message, but it is not the right message. The message it sends is that we, in fact, are not willing to look at serious deficit reduction at this point.

The first area of cuts I wish to talk about contained in H.R. 1 that will severely impact our Nation for years to come and have an effect on how many jobs we can actually create is the area of science and energy innovation. Last December, this Congress passed a reauthorization of what we call the America COMPETES Act. I was very privileged to work, particularly with my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, on helping to get that legislation enacted. Its purpose was to authorize funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, for the National Science Foundation, and for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology for the next 3 years so that by fiscal year 2016, we would have completed a 10-year doubling of the funding for those agencies. I wish to note that this effort was first started during the Bush administration. It has been carried forward during this current administration under President Obama. The effort has enjoyed strong bipartisan support and garnered endorsements from leading industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the Council on Competitiveness. These organizations recognize that the future of our Nation depends on the strong scientific backbone we need for our workforce in order to out-innovate our competitors around the world. So it comes as a surprise to me to see large cuts being proposed by the House of Representatives in their fiscal year 2011 funding bill to the very programs that all of us seemed to agree are needed to keep us competitive in the years ahead.

What cuts am I talking about? Let me give one example. The Office of Science is the Nation's largest supporter of the physical sciences, and these are the very areas by which we intend to supply a new stream of scientists and engineers to companies such as Intel, Ford Motor Company, and others. The House bill proposes to cut the Office of Science budget by $1.1 billion or 22 percent. The result is an estimated reduction of 4,500 full-time scientists and engineers working on basic endeavors in the area of energy science. It will terminate the Early Career Research Program for young faculty and ongoing graduate programs in the energy sciences. National user facilities that the Office of Science runs for upward of 27,000 researchers from industry and academia will be shuttered or put into a standby status. This

includes the four nanoscience centers across the United States, which have had breakthrough discoveries to propel our industries forward in the areas of solid-state lighting, new drugs, and microelectronics.

Let me talk about some of the other programs impacted in the Department of Energy. The Office of Nuclear Energy, which is leading the way to a new generation of smaller, less costly reactors at places such as Oak Ridge and Idaho National Laboratories, will suffer. The ability to move this bipartisan program forward will cease.

In the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--EER&E, as it is referred to in the Department--the House bill will result in over 31,000 homes that will not be weatherized, and by July 1, it is estimated that something like 8,000 people who are expected to perform this work will be out of jobs. The program to mix coal with biomass, which shows great promise, will be eliminated, as will programs to fund offshore wind.

Let me cite some other examples of the damage that the House bill will have on other agencies in the COMPETES Act.

The National Science Foundation will have reductions leading to a loss of 10,000 university researchers and graduate students. Being so late in the year--and I indicated we have about 5 months left in this fiscal year--it will reduce the program to train teachers in math and science by 53 percent, at a time when it is widely recognized that other nations are outperforming us in student test scores in these subjects.

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

The first letter is by the Council on Competitiveness, signed by Sam Allen, chairman and CEO of the Deere Company; Mike Splinter, chairman and CEO of Applied Materials; Chad Holliday, chairman of the Bank of America; William Hite, general president of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters; Deborah Wince-Smith, president and CEO of the Council. That letter succinctly states that:

Scientific research and skilled workers are the basis for

new ideas, new technologies, new products and services, new

companies, even entirely new industries. The American economy

cannot compete and grow if we neglect our capacity to

innovate.

The other letter, from 175 universities, industries, and laboratories, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, supports the goals outlined in the America COMPETES Act and asks this Chamber to reject the cuts adopted by the House funding bill. This letter states that:

Congress took a very important step for our Nation's future

by reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act in 2010,

reaffirming its commitment to the science and innovation

essential to long-term economic growth. We urge you to

continue implementation funding and to reject the cuts to

research and STEM education adopted by the House in H.R. 1.

I will move to the issue of homeland security. Over the last several years, we have heard a lot of speeches in the Senate about the need to bolster border security, particularly along the southern border, and enhance homeland security capabilities. Unfortunately, the budget the House has presented falls short in this respect.

The continuing resolution would severely impact the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security and reduce essential assistance that is provided to organizations at the State and local level. This legislation would be a step back in terms of the progress we are making in securing our border and ensuring that communities and law enforcement agencies along the border have the necessary resources to handle crime and to respond to disasters.

With regard to border security, the House continuing resolution would reduce planned technological, fencing, and security improvements along the southwest border. The legislation would reduce interoperable communication capabilities, and it would cut tactical communications modernization efforts by 50 percent, making it more difficult for law enforcement to respond to emergencies in a timely way.

The House bill would also provide funding for 20,500 Border Patrol agents, rather than the 21,370 the Senate is proposing to fund. This cutback in Border Patrol agents, I think, is shortsighted.

The measure would also severely impact aviation security initiatives. The number of advanced imaging technology screening machines, canine teams, and explosive detection machines would also be slashed by over 50 percent.

FEMA grants that help State and local governments respond to and prepare for disasters would be reduced by about 20 percent.

The House bill would drastically cut back on DHS's cyber security plans--cyber security coverage of the Federal civilian networks would be reduced from about 30 percent to 12 percent.

And with respect to the DHS science and technology directorate, the CR would reduce funding for research and

development by about $600 million--which would mean the elimination of entire research areas, such as border security and cyber security, and the significant reduction in nuclear and explosives research and funding for projects at DOE national laboratories--including a potential reduction of $60 to $80 million for New Mexico's labs. It is critical that we make the investments in research and development now to ensure we stay ahead of emerging security threats.

The House CR also drastically cuts DOJ State and local law enforcement assistance programs that are critical in keeping our communities safe and preventing crime.

State and locals law enforcement grants are cut by 37 percent and juvenile justice programs are reduced by 45 percent. The bill also eliminates funding for the Weed and Seed Program and reduces the COPS Program by 25 percent--the Republican plan originally called for completely eliminating the COPS hiring program, which has been instrumental in keeping police officers in communities across New Mexico, but Democratic efforts in the House to restore the funding were successful. The proposed cuts to the Byrne law enforcement grant program would also result in a $1 million drop in assistance coming to New Mexico.

With respect to education, H.R. 1 contains draconian cuts that would limit opportunities for millions of Americans of all ages and educational levels. It would cut Federal education spending by $11.55 billion, or 16.1 percent. This would be, if approved, the largest education cut in history.

H.R. 1 would cut Head Start by $1.1 billion--15 percent--resulting about 2,000 fewer children in New Mexico receiving early childhood education services that prepare them for success in school.

It would cut title I, which provides academic support to disadvantaged students in public schools, by $693 million. It would also cut the Pell grant maximum award by $845, or 15.2 percent. Mr. President, 57,402 New Mexican students received Pell grants in the 2009-10 academic year, and more are expected to be eligible in coming years. Many low- and moderate-income students in New Mexico would find college less affordable and less accessible under H.R. 1.

These House-passed education cuts would devastate New Mexico's public education system, which is already facing severe State budget cuts. And they would limit our country's future economic competitiveness and security.

In contrast, the proposed Senate Democratic year-long continuing resolution proposal provides stability in Federal education investments. It maintains the Pell grant maximum award while providing modest increases for title I grants, Head Start, and other critical Federal education programs. In today's fiscal climate, H.R. 1's drastic cuts to education investments are irresponsible and would have dire consequences for New Mexico and the country.

It is not a question of whether there should be cuts--but whether we should be smart about where we make the cuts.

To me it is clear that H.R. 1 does not represent smart policy about where to make these cuts. It represents a plan to mindlessly cut funding in the remaining 5 months of the current fiscal year in order to send a ``message'' to the world that we are serious.

In my view H.R. 1 sends a message but not the right one.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from a coalition of corporations and businesses be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2011. I am pleased that Senators Kyl, Udall of New Mexico, Schumer, and Bennet of Colorado are joining me today in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. Congressman Schiff and Reichert are also introducing this bipartisan bill in the House.

Similar legislation, which was championed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Teague, overwhelmingly passed that body last year with a bipartisan vote of 357 to 32. Unfortunately, efforts to move the legislation last year were unsuccessful in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill in the Senate this Congress.

The bill is named after Katie Sepich, a promising graduate student attending New Mexico State University who was tragically murdered in 2003. The man who killed Katie was arrested for aggravated assault about 3 months after the murder. Although police had collected the killer's DNA from the crime scene, because there was no requirement that DNA be taken from individuals arrested for serious felonies, police weren't able to get a match until about 3 years after the murder when the man was sent to prison after being convicted of unrelated crimes.

If New Mexico had the arrestee law then that it has today it would have taken 3 months, not 3 years, to solve the crime. Katie's mother, Jayann, has worked tirelessly at the state and Federal level to give law enforcement the tools they need to promptly solve crimes and ensure that other mothers don't have to suffer the same horrible ordeal that her family has.

We can't get Katie back, or the other lives that have been lost to these senseless crimes, but we can do something to help solve cases and prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. One such step is to enhance the capacity of States to collect the DNA of individuals arrested for certain felony crimes, which would substantially increase the ability of law enforcement to match DNA found at crimes scenes with that of suspects and individuals who have been previously arrested, charged, or convicted of crimes.

The Federal Government and about half the states, including New Mexico, currently collect arrestee DNA for serious offenses. This has proven to be a very effective tool in solving cases, and it makes sense to incentivize States to continue and to expand this effort. Since New Mexico implemented ``Katie's Law'' in 7007, there have been about 100 matches of arrestees. It is also important to note that DNA collection has not only demonstrated its effectiveness in terms of saving lives and preventing crimes, but it has also proved to be an important means of ensuring that innocent individuals are not mistakenly jailed for crimes they did not commit.

Let me take a moment to specifically describe what this legislation would, and would not, do. First, this legislation is aimed at creating an incentive for states to enact arrestee DNA collection program's. It is not a mandate. States that meet minimum collection guidelines could apply for DOJ grant assistance in covering the first-year costs that they have incurred or will incur in implementing the standards. If they enact laws in accordance with the enhanced guidelines, States would be eligible for an additional bonus payment.

Second, the bill encourages DNA testing for serious felonies, such as murder, sex crimes, aggravated assault, and burglary. It is narrowly tailored to apply to the most serious crimes. Third, the legislation provides that all of the expungement provisions under Federal law are applicable. Arrestees who have their DNA included in the Federal database may have their records expunged if their conviction is overturned, they are acquitted, or charges are dismissed or not filed within the applicable time period. Furthermore, the bill provides that as a condition of receiving a grant States must notify individuals who submit samples of the relevant expungement procedures and post the information on a public Web site.

Lastly, I would like to address the concerns some have raised about the constitutionality of collecting arrestee DNA. Although courts have upheld the collection of arrestee DNA, I recognize that the question of whether the collection of a DNA sample from an arrestee is consistent with the Fourth Amendment isn't a completely settled question of law. Some courts have viewed the collection as something akin to fingerprinting and other courts have viewed it as a more intrusive search, such as the taking of a blood sample. However, the Department of Justice has stated that it believes that this legislation is constitutional and is supportive of encouraging states to pass DNA arrestee laws. I believe that such programs, with appropriate safeguards in place, have demonstrated that they can be a very effective mechanism to save lives, solve crimes, and prevent wrongful convictions.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2011. I am pleased that Senators Kyl, Udall of New Mexico, Schumer, and Bennet of Colorado are joining me today in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. Congressman Schiff and Reichert are also introducing this bipartisan bill in the House.

Similar legislation, which was championed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Teague, overwhelmingly passed that body last year with a bipartisan vote of 357 to 32. Unfortunately, efforts to move the legislation last year were unsuccessful in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill in the Senate this Congress.

The bill is named after Katie Sepich, a promising graduate student attending New Mexico State University who was tragically murdered in 2003. The man who killed Katie was arrested for aggravated assault about 3 months after the murder. Although police had collected the killer's DNA from the crime scene, because there was no requirement that DNA be taken from individuals arrested for serious felonies, police weren't able to get a match until about 3 years after the murder when the man was sent to prison after being convicted of unrelated crimes.

If New Mexico had the arrestee law then that it has today it would have taken 3 months, not 3 years, to solve the crime. Katie's mother, Jayann, has worked tirelessly at the state and Federal level to give law enforcement the tools they need to promptly solve crimes and ensure that other mothers don't have to suffer the same horrible ordeal that her family has.

We can't get Katie back, or the other lives that have been lost to these senseless crimes, but we can do something to help solve cases and prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. One such step is to enhance the capacity of States to collect the DNA of individuals arrested for certain felony crimes, which would substantially increase the ability of law enforcement to match DNA found at crimes scenes with that of suspects and individuals who have been previously arrested, charged, or convicted of crimes.

The Federal Government and about half the states, including New Mexico, currently collect arrestee DNA for serious offenses. This has proven to be a very effective tool in solving cases, and it makes sense to incentivize States to continue and to expand this effort. Since New Mexico implemented ``Katie's Law'' in 7007, there have been about 100 matches of arrestees. It is also important to note that DNA collection has not only demonstrated its effectiveness in terms of saving lives and preventing crimes, but it has also proved to be an important means of ensuring that innocent individuals are not mistakenly jailed for crimes they did not commit.

Let me take a moment to specifically describe what this legislation would, and would not, do. First, this legislation is aimed at creating an incentive for states to enact arrestee DNA collection program's. It is not a mandate. States that meet minimum collection guidelines could apply for DOJ grant assistance in covering the first-year costs that they have incurred or will incur in implementing the standards. If they enact laws in accordance with the enhanced guidelines, States would be eligible for an additional bonus payment.

Second, the bill encourages DNA testing for serious felonies, such as murder, sex crimes, aggravated assault, and burglary. It is narrowly tailored to apply to the most serious crimes. Third, the legislation provides that all of the expungement provisions under Federal law are applicable. Arrestees who have their DNA included in the Federal database may have their records expunged if their conviction is overturned, they are acquitted, or charges are dismissed or not filed within the applicable time period. Furthermore, the bill provides that as a condition of receiving a grant States must notify individuals who submit samples of the relevant expungement procedures and post the information on a public Web site.

Lastly, I would like to address the concerns some have raised about the constitutionality of collecting arrestee DNA. Although courts have upheld the collection of arrestee DNA, I recognize that the question of whether the collection of a DNA sample from an arrestee is consistent with the Fourth Amendment isn't a completely settled question of law. Some courts have viewed the collection as something akin to fingerprinting and other courts have viewed it as a more intrusive search, such as the taking of a blood sample. However, the Department of Justice has stated that it believes that this legislation is constitutional and is supportive of encouraging states to pass DNA arrestee laws. I believe that such programs, with appropriate safeguards in place, have demonstrated that they can be a very effective mechanism to save lives, solve crimes, and prevent wrongful convictions.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2012 proposed budget for the National Park Service.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Allison Seyferth at (202) 224-4905.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The State of the Housing Market.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in SD-406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's 2011 Trade Agenda.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 9, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 9, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``New Tools for Curbing Waste and Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.''

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a classified meeting has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SVC-217, U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the meeting will be to receive information regarding cyber security and critical electric infrastructure.

For further information, please contact Kevin Huyler at (202) 224- 6689 or Meagan Gins at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine current global investment trends in clean energy technologies and the impact of domestic policies on that investment.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Mike Carr at (202) 224-8164 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-1219.