Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a bill has been added to a previously announced hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The bill is S. 1039, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey.

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, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected]. gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by Senators Leahy and Specter to restore the writ of habeas corpus. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and it is my sincere hope that it will be adopted.

One of the most troubling aspects of the administration's onslaught on basic civil rights, which has largely been carried out with the acquiescence of Congress, is with regard to the suspension of habeas corpus.

The ``great writ,'' as it is known in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is simply the basic right to challenge the legality of one's confinement by the Government. It is based on a core American value that it is unacceptable to give the executive branch unchecked authority to detain whomever it wants without an independent review of the legality of the Government's actions. The right dates back to the Magna Carta, and our Founding Fathers included it as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

I would like to take a moment to briefly recount how we ended up where we are today.

In 2004, in the case Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base have the right to challenge the legality of their detention by filing a habeas petition in a U.S. Federal court.

In November 2005, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, and at the behest of the Bush administration, Senator Graham offered an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization bill that sought to overrule the Rasul decision and strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas claims filed by Guantanamo prisoners.

I offered an alternative amendment aimed at preserving the right to habeas corpus. My amendment was voted on the day before the Senate recessed for Veterans Day. No hearings had been held in either the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Armed Services Committee regarding the impact of eliminating this longstanding right. After very little debate on the Senate floor, my amendment was defeated by a vote of 49- 42. The next week I offered a second amendment also aimed at preserving habeas rights, but it was also defeated after a deal was reached as part of what is known as the Graham-Levin compromise.

Under the Graham-Levin compromise, which was ultimately included in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, habeas rights were curtailed but the D.C. Circuit was granted very limited jurisdiction to review the determination of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. That compromise was adopted 84-14. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that it was unclear as to whether Congress intended to prospectively repeal habeas rights and that the military commissions in Guantanamo were improperly constituted in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Once again, the Senate had the opportunity to restore our Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

Unfortunately, rather than standing up for the rights enshrined in our Constitution, the Senate passed, by a vote of 65-34, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which explicitly eliminated habeas rights.

Today is almost exactly a year after the Senate voted to pass the Military Commissions Act, and the Senate once again has the opportunity do what is right. We have the chance to restore one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and I hope the Senate will take this important step in restoring our Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing will be to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 128, to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to designate a new management entity, make certain technical and conforming amendments, enhance private property protections, and for other purposes; S. 148, to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Park in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 189, to decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan; S. 697, to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 867, to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1341, to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 1476, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc County, California, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System; S. 1709 and H.R. 1239, to amend the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 to provide additional staff and oversight of funds to carry out the Act, and for other purposes; S. 1808, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Denali National Park in the State of Alaska; S. 1969, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

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, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected]. gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Rockefeller, Obama, Brown, Kerry, Byrd, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Feingold, Murray, Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Whitehouse, Sanders, Cantwell, Tester, Clinton, Landrieu, and Salazar to offer a Joint Resolution that provides for Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government and other provisions under the Medicaid program, 72 Fed. Reg. 29748, May 29, 2007.

This rule is a very blunt and sweeping instrument. It is purportedly intended to stamp out certain categories of Medicaid fraud, which by CMS's own admission may only be an issue in 3 States. As a result of the sweeping nature of this rule, many States like New Mexico will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Medicaid dollars. This would occur despite that fact that New Mexico and other States have worked hard to ensure the integrity of their Medicaid programs and have consistently received approval from CMS for the design and operation of their programs.

Congress has reacted strongly to the proposed regulation with 65 Senators and 263 House Members publicly criticizing the rule. Ultimately, Congress temporarily prevented CMS from implementing the regulation. A 1-year moratorium of the rule was adopted in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28, Section 7002. This moratorium blocks CMS from implementing the Medicaid regulation before May 25, 2008.

In spite of clear Congressional disapproval, CMS published a final rule in the Federal Register the very day the President signed the 1- year moratorium provision into law. The final regulation retains the most damaging components of the proposed regulation, including limiting Medicaid payments to safety-net hospitals. In addition, we have been contacted by State Medicaid agencies that have been asked to certify in State Plan Amendments being considered this year that they will be in compliance with rule as soon as the moratorium is lifted in 2008.

Major Medicaid reforms require a Congressional role; by rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded Congressional opposition and attempted to usurp our role. CMS's action requires States to prepare for implementation of the regulation and expend administrative resources to do so, all of this before Congress has the opportunity to address the key policy issues contained in the regulation.

This Resolution of Disapproval will permanently halt the damaging CMS regulation. At this time, it is the appropriate response given CMS's issuance of the final Medicaid rule and its devastating effect on State Medicaid programs, safety-net providers, and, ultimately, the ability of low-income Americans to receive the life-saving medical care to which they are entitled under Federal law.

Therefore, I rise today to offer joint resolution with my colleagues and urge others to join in cosponsoring this important resolution. Together we can work to ensure its passage before the devastating Medicaid rule takes effect and jeopardizes our States' Medicaid programs.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Rockefeller, Obama, Brown, Kerry, Byrd, Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Feingold, Murray, Bayh, Lincoln, Pryor, Whitehouse, Sanders, Cantwell, Tester, Clinton, Landrieu, and Salazar to offer a Joint Resolution that provides for Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, relating to a cost limit for providers operated by units of government and other provisions under the Medicaid program, 72 Fed. Reg. 29748, May 29, 2007.

This rule is a very blunt and sweeping instrument. It is purportedly intended to stamp out certain categories of Medicaid fraud, which by CMS's own admission may only be an issue in 3 States. As a result of the sweeping nature of this rule, many States like New Mexico will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Medicaid dollars. This would occur despite that fact that New Mexico and other States have worked hard to ensure the integrity of their Medicaid programs and have consistently received approval from CMS for the design and operation of their programs.

Congress has reacted strongly to the proposed regulation with 65 Senators and 263 House Members publicly criticizing the rule. Ultimately, Congress temporarily prevented CMS from implementing the regulation. A 1-year moratorium of the rule was adopted in the recent supplemental appropriations bill, P.L. 110-28, Section 7002. This moratorium blocks CMS from implementing the Medicaid regulation before May 25, 2008.

In spite of clear Congressional disapproval, CMS published a final rule in the Federal Register the very day the President signed the 1- year moratorium provision into law. The final regulation retains the most damaging components of the proposed regulation, including limiting Medicaid payments to safety-net hospitals. In addition, we have been contacted by State Medicaid agencies that have been asked to certify in State Plan Amendments being considered this year that they will be in compliance with rule as soon as the moratorium is lifted in 2008.

Major Medicaid reforms require a Congressional role; by rushing to publish a final regulation, CMS has disregarded Congressional opposition and attempted to usurp our role. CMS's action requires States to prepare for implementation of the regulation and expend administrative resources to do so, all of this before Congress has the opportunity to address the key policy issues contained in the regulation.

This Resolution of Disapproval will permanently halt the damaging CMS regulation. At this time, it is the appropriate response given CMS's issuance of the final Medicaid rule and its devastating effect on State Medicaid programs, safety-net providers, and, ultimately, the ability of low-income Americans to receive the life-saving medical care to which they are entitled under Federal law.

Therefore, I rise today to offer joint resolution with my colleagues and urge others to join in cosponsoring this important resolution. Together we can work to ensure its passage before the devastating Medicaid rule takes effect and jeopardizes our States' Medicaid programs.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purposes of this hearing are to receive testimony on the status of energy efficient lighting technologies and on S. 2017, the Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act.

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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes or Britni Rillera.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that two bills have been added to a previously announced hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.

The hearing will be held on September 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

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, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact David Brooks or Rachel Pasternack.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, September 24, 2007, at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider scientific assessments of the impacts of global climate change on wildfire activity in the United States.

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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Scott Miller or Rachel Pasternack.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purposes of this hearing are to receive testimony on S. 1756, a bill to provide supplemental ex gratia compensation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for impacts of the nuclear testing program of the United States, and for other purposes; and to receive testimony on the implementation of the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Marshall Islands.

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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Allen Stayman or Britni Rillera.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 26, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1543, a bill to establish a national geothermal initiative to encourage increased production of energy from geothermal resources by creating a program of geothermal research, development, demonstration

and commercial application to support the achievement of a national geothermal energy goal.

Due to 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, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected] .gov.

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Rosemarie Calabro.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on hard-rock mining on Federal lands.

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, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. As you know, the cost of college has tripled in the last 20 years.

In my State of New Mexico, the cost of attendance at 4-year public colleges has increased by 35 percent since 2000-2001. Unfortunately, the median household income in New Mexico only increased by 11 percent in that same time frame, considerably lower than the rate of increase at public colleges.

Each year, there are hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college, but do not do so because of financial barriers. Further, an increasing number of students have to rely on loans to finance their education. In fact, in New Mexico, more than half of all students graduating from 4-year institutions graduate with debt. And the average student in New Mexico now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 in debt.

The conference report to H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, is critical to addressing the skyrocketing costs of college, and making college more accessible to students across the country.

This legislation will actually increase student aid by more than $20 billion over the next 5 years, without increasing the national debt. It is paid for by cutting excessive Federal subsidies to lenders participating in the student loan program.

This legislation will increase the maximum Pell grant by $500 next year and to $5,400 by 2012. In addition, the bill: simplifies the financial aid process for low-income students by increasing the income level at which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell; protects working students, increasing the amount of student income that is sheltered from the financial aid process; expands eligibility for financial aid so more students will qualify for more assistance; eases the burden of student debt by cutting student loan interest rates in half to 3.4 percent for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans; caps monthly loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income so that graduates with significant loan debt can better manage their payments, particularly those in lower paying jobs or those supporting children; and forgives the student debt for those who commit to public service for a period of 10 years.

This student aid package could mean as much as $200 million over the next 5 years in financial aid to help New Mexico's students and families beat back the rising costs of college.

In addition, I am pleased that the conference report will restore critical funding for Upward Bound, a key college access program.

Further, the legislation will provide scholarships of $4,000/year for high-achieving undergraduate and graduate students who commit to teaching a high-need subject, such as math, science, special education, foreign languages, or bilingual education, in a high-need school.

Moreover, the conference report provides critical support to minority serving institutions. Despite tremendous growth in racial and ethnic minority enrollment at the nation's colleges and universities in recent years, Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans continue to lag behind their non-minority peers in college enrollment. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act will invest an additional $500 million in these institutions, including: $200 million in funding for Hispanic serving institutions--HSIs--to increase the number of students attaining degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math, and to facilitate transfers for students from 2-year HSIs to 4-year HSIs; and $60 million in funding to strengthen tribal colleges and universities.

I am particularly pleased that the conference report contains language I authored that would create and fund a program for Native American serving institutions. The legislation will provide $10 million to fund and help create a program for Native American serving institutions, those nontribal colleges and universities that serve large Native American student populations.

This conference report is critical to helping American families meet the increasing burden of sending their children to college, and also meets some very important national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. President, let me speak as in morning business about a dear friend who died this last Sunday, and that is Ed McGaffigan. Ed has been a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now for over 10 years. He is the longest serving member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the history of our country. Prior to that, he was a staff member in my office working with me on foreign policy issues, on defense policy issues, on science and technology issues. The country has lost a great public servant, and we have all lost a great friend with the passing of Ed McGaffigan.

When I first came to the Senate in 1983, I was appointed to the Armed Services Committee, and I have remained on that committee for essentially 20 years. When I first got here, I needed the help, obviously, of someone who knew something about foreign policy and defense policy, and I called Professor Joe Nye at the Harvard's Kennedy School to ask if he could recommend anyone. His immediate response to me was: There is a young man working in the White House Science Office named Ed McGaffigan. I would recommend Ed without any reservation. If you could persuade Ed to work for you in this capacity, you would be extremely well served. As it happened, I was able to persuade Ed to do that in 1983.

He worked with me on defense issues and foreign policy issues and science and technology issues for 13\1/2\ years. Then he moved on and was appointed by President Clinton to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He was appointed to a term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then reappointed to a second term by President Clinton and reappointed once again by President Bush.

I will always be grateful to Professor Nye for his immediate and superb recognition of Ed. Ed had many virtues. He was a man of great faith. He was faithful to his God, of course, his family, his job, and his country. He was known for his love of his family, his wife Peggy, and his children, Eddie and Meggy. He saw his job as public service. He made a decision early in his career to pursue public service. He worked in the State Department, he worked in the White House science office, he worked in the Senate, and he worked as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In each position, he demonstrated great ability and uncompromising integrity.

Ed made it his business to understand whatever the issue was at hand better than anybody else. He had the intellectual capacity and the determination to do exactly that. He sought expert advice, but he was not one who would accept any advice at face value. He was trained as a physicist; he was a physicist. He had an extremely keen mind, and he was in the enviable position of being able to be his own expert, having his own expert views on many subjects.

The second advantage I would cite for Ed in his public service was his courage. He employed that courage time and again when he stepped up to be the teller of truth. One recent column described him as a ``debunker of hype.'' There was another story that was written about Ed this week, where he was referred to as a ``feisty advocate for nuclear technology.'' I can see how someone might interpret his statements and actions that way, but, in fact, Ed saw himself not as an advocate for a particular technology--nuclear or any other--but instead as a person who was unafraid to tell the truth even when that went against the popular view, even when it meant dispelling widely shared myths.

Ed had the intellectual ability and the courage to accomplish a tremendous amount. There was no question or surprise when he chose to use that intellectual ability and courage to face the illness that did finally claim his life. He did all of the reading that was doable on the subject of that illness. He asked hard questions. He took in the answers, and he managed his life for the last 8 years in the best way possible.

As sometimes happens with cancer--which is what ultimately prevailed--there are days of remission and there are also days of illness. Recently, he enjoyed a reprieve from the pain and discomfort that was caused by the disease and the treatment. Bob Simon and Sam Fowler of the Energy Committee and myself were fortunate to have lunch with Ed in the Senate diningroom in June. It was a typical meeting with Ed. He was focused on the future, on how to accomplish the important work of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He was a devoted public servant to the end of his days. He achieved an enormous amount. Much of his ability to achieve in these final months and throughout his career, of course, was due to the superb work of his staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They deserve great credit, as well, for helping him in these final months. Ed must have been one of the few hospice patients in the country who continued to work 4 days a week. As far as I know, he is the only hospice patient to testify before the Senate in July.

Ed made the most of the reprieve he was granted, but this last week his illness came forward and he died on Sunday. He was buried in Arlington, VA, today. The Senate is a poorer place for his passing, and the country has lost a great public servant. We have all lost a very good friend.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purposes of this hearing are to receive testimony on S. 1756, a bill to provide supplemental ex gratia compensation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for impacts of the nuclear testing program of the United States, and for other purposes; and to receive testimony on the implementation of the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Marshall Islands.

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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Allen Stayman at (202) 224- 7865 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the status of energy efficient lighting technologies and on S. 2017, the Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act.

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 two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 4971 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will transform the lighting market in the U.S.

Beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2014, the current 40, 60, 75, and 100 watt incandescent bulbs will be phased out and replaced by lower wattage bulbs that produce the equivalent amount of light. For example, bulbs that currently consume 100 watts of electricity would be just as bright but would consume only 72 watts of electricity.

By 2014, the traditional incandescent light bulbs found in approximately 4 billion U.S. light sockets will be virtually obsolete. Their 125 year old technology will be replaced by new technologies such as LEDS, light emitting diodes, halogen incandescent bulbs, improved compact fluorescent lamps and higher efficiency incandescent bulbs.

When fully implemented, the new efficiency standards for incandescent lighting will save 65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This is the equivalent of shutting down 24 new 500 mw coal plants a year and would save consumers almost $6 billion a year in electricity costs. The light bulb standards will save nearly as much energy as of the Federal appliance standards from 1987 to 2000. Energy savings from this one standard are two to three times larger than savings from any other single appliance standard. Unlike the energy savings from longer- lived appliances which are replaced on a 10 to 15 year cycle, the full savings from efficient light bulbs will roll in much sooner, about 1 to 3 years after enactment.

My legislation requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct two additional rulemakings to consider imposing more stringent efficiency standards for lighting. The secretary is required to consider a standard of 45 lumens per watt in the first rulemaking and to adopt that standard or an alternative standard that results in equivalent or greater energy savings. If the Secretary fails adopt a standard with the equivalent savings or fails to complete the first rulemaking on time, a 45 lumens per watt standard will become effective in 2020.

The legislation also includes detailed provisions aimed at preventing unscrupulous manufacturers from finding ways to avoid the efficiency regulations.

The bill seeks to help consumers make their lighting purchasing decisions based on lifecycle cost, lamp lifetime and lighting quality by improving the labeling requirements for light bulbs. In addition, the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with EPA, Commerce, and the FTC is required to provide an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescents. The Secretary is also required to work with the lighting industry, utilities and other parties to carry out a national consumer awareness program to help consumers make energy efficient lighting choices.

Many of the provisions in my bill were hammered out in negotiations between major lighting manufacturers and efficiency advocates. In fact, Philips Lighting was the initiator of the negotiations on phasing out inefficient incandescent lamps, and Osram Sylvania and General Electric were actively engaged in the process. Many efficiency advocates participated in the negotiations including the Alliance to Save Energy, ACEEE, and NRDC. The negotiators made a great deal of progress but were unfortunately unable to reach consensus on all of the issues involved before the energy bill was considered by the Senate.

My bill sets forth a reasonable process that will save a significant amount of energy and also allow manufacturers to plan for and implement major changes in an orderly way. The House energy bill includes a similar lighting provision authored by Representatives Harman and Upton.

I intend to hold a hearing on this legislation next week. I hope that what we learn at the hearing will facilitate reaching a consensus on efficient lighting standards during the House-Senate conference H.R. 6, the energy bill. We must take action to assure that the potential energy savings from these standards become a reality.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will transform the lighting market in the U.S.

Beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2014, the current 40, 60, 75, and 100 watt incandescent bulbs will be phased out and replaced by lower wattage bulbs that produce the equivalent amount of light. For example, bulbs that currently consume 100 watts of electricity would be just as bright but would consume only 72 watts of electricity.

By 2014, the traditional incandescent light bulbs found in approximately 4 billion U.S. light sockets will be virtually obsolete. Their 125 year old technology will be replaced by new technologies such as LEDS, light emitting diodes, halogen incandescent bulbs, improved compact fluorescent lamps and higher efficiency incandescent bulbs.

When fully implemented, the new efficiency standards for incandescent lighting will save 65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year. This is the equivalent of shutting down 24 new 500 mw coal plants a year and would save consumers almost $6 billion a year in electricity costs. The light bulb standards will save nearly as much energy as of the Federal appliance standards from 1987 to 2000. Energy savings from this one standard are two to three times larger than savings from any other single appliance standard. Unlike the energy savings from longer- lived appliances which are replaced on a 10 to 15 year cycle, the full savings from efficient light bulbs will roll in much sooner, about 1 to 3 years after enactment.

My legislation requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct two additional rulemakings to consider imposing more stringent efficiency standards for lighting. The secretary is required to consider a standard of 45 lumens per watt in the first rulemaking and to adopt that standard or an alternative standard that results in equivalent or greater energy savings. If the Secretary fails adopt a standard with the equivalent savings or fails to complete the first rulemaking on time, a 45 lumens per watt standard will become effective in 2020.

The legislation also includes detailed provisions aimed at preventing unscrupulous manufacturers from finding ways to avoid the efficiency regulations.

The bill seeks to help consumers make their lighting purchasing decisions based on lifecycle cost, lamp lifetime and lighting quality by improving the labeling requirements for light bulbs. In addition, the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with EPA, Commerce, and the FTC is required to provide an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescents. The Secretary is also required to work with the lighting industry, utilities and other parties to carry out a national consumer awareness program to help consumers make energy efficient lighting choices.

Many of the provisions in my bill were hammered out in negotiations between major lighting manufacturers and efficiency advocates. In fact, Philips Lighting was the initiator of the negotiations on phasing out inefficient incandescent lamps, and Osram Sylvania and General Electric were actively engaged in the process. Many efficiency advocates participated in the negotiations including the Alliance to Save Energy, ACEEE, and NRDC. The negotiators made a great deal of progress but were unfortunately unable to reach consensus on all of the issues involved before the energy bill was considered by the Senate.

My bill sets forth a reasonable process that will save a significant amount of energy and also allow manufacturers to plan for and implement major changes in an orderly way. The House energy bill includes a similar lighting provision authored by Representatives Harman and Upton.

I intend to hold a hearing on this legislation next week. I hope that what we learn at the hearing will facilitate reaching a consensus on efficient lighting standards during the House-Senate conference H.R. 6, the energy bill. We must take action to assure that the potential energy savings from these standards become a reality.

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on September 11, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 127, to amend the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve Act of 2000 to explain the purpose and provide for the administration of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge; S. 327 and H.R. 359, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement; S. 868, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1051, to authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia at Constitution Gardens previously approved to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American Revolution; S. 1184 and H.R. 1021, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study regarding the suitability and feasibility of designating certain historic buildings and areas in Taunton, Massachusetts, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 1247, to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 to limit the development of any property acquired by the Secretary of the Interior for the development of visitor and administrative facilities for the Weir Farm National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 1304, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Arizona National Scenic Trail; S. 1329, to extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes; H.R. 759, to redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, as the ``Bob Hope Memorial Library''; and

H.R. 807, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the feasibility and suitability of establishing a memorial to the Space Shuttle Columbia in the State of Texas and for its inclusion as a unit of the National Park System.

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, United States Senate, Washington DC 20510-6150, or by email to [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) Q24-0883.

committee on rules and administration

Mr. President, I want to take a very few minutes to comment on the action of the Senate last night in passing and sending to the President the America COMPETES Act.

With the passage of the conference report, I hope we will begin a long-term commitment by the Congress and by the executive branch to ensure our Nation continues to lead the world in innovation and economic competitiveness.

I will put in the record a full statement of the history that has led us to this point of hard work that has gone on by many in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, as well as in the private sector.

Yesterday, the House voted 357 to 57 to pass the conference report and in doing so affirmed that on large issues such as these we can work in a bipartisan way for the benefit of our Nation. Then, later last night, the Senate passed the conference report by unanimous consent.

This bill has been more than 2 years in the making. One primary impetus was in May of 2005, when Senator Alexander and I asked the National Academies of Science to report on steps the Congress could take to keep the United States competitive in a rapidly changing global environment. That report, entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' was spearheaded by Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin. It was released in October of 2005 and received significant attention in the U.S. media. The report clearly tapped into an increasing concern among many Americans about the challenges we face in competing against the rising national economies of countries such as India and China.

In January of 2006, Senator Domenici, Senator Alexander, and I, along with 67 other cosponsors, introduced the Protecting America's Competitiveness Edge Act, or PACE Act. This bill reflected the recommendations of the Augustine commission and covered a wide array of topics related to competitiveness, including increasing funding for research and education and other provisions designed to encourage a climate of entrepreneurship and innovation.

On a separate track, in December 2004, the Council on Competitiveness released their report entitled, ``Innovate America.'' Based upon that report, Senators Ensign and Lieberman introduced S. 2802, entitled the American Innovation Act of 2006.

That summer, Senator Frist asked the authors of both bills and other interested Members, including the chairman of HELP, Senator Enzi and Ranking Member Kennedy, to draft a comprehensive Senate bill which was introduced in the Senate as S. 3936, the National Competitiveness and Innovation Act. S. 3936 was introduced in the final days of the 109th Congress as a Fist-Reid bill.

Continuing this bipartisan effort in the 110th Congress, Senators Alexander, Domenici, and I introduced S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, which was taken up by the Senate and passed 88 to 8 in April of this year, with Senators Reid and McConnell as the lead sponsors.

Meanwhile, similar efforts were going on in the House with the House Science Committee. The conference report that is on its way to the President is a result of bipartisan, bicameral compromise and cooperation.

Reconciling the House and Senate bills started before Memorial Day and involved the Senate Committees on Commerce, HELP, and Energy. In the House, it involved the Committees on Science and Education and Labor. All in all, it took the efforts of over 70 staff to complete this legislation. I want to thank the members of these committees for their bipartisan effort and long-term vision on keeping our Nation competitive.

I want to thank in particular the staff of these committees, all of whom put in long, hard hours, in many cases juggling the demands of other bills that their committee had on the floor. In the Senate, once things got underway 2 years ago, the process by which we operated was completely transparent--there was never a meeting held that did not include staff from both sides of the aisle. There was a remarkable lack of acrimony, and a striking absence of partisanship. I could not be more proud of this process and the staff that undertook it, and I think the conference report we passed last night reflects that process. It should serve as a model for the way this body should operate.

Mr. President, let me quote from the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm''--

Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of

competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged

position. For the first time in generations, the nation's

children could face poorer prospects than their parents and

grandparents did. We owe the current prosperity, security,

and good health to investments of the past generations, and

we are obliged to renew those commitments in education,

research, and innovation policies to ensure that the American

people continue to benefit from the remarkable opportunities

provided by the rapid development of the global economy and

its not inconsiderable underpinning in science and

technology.

This legislation represents that much-needed renewed commitment to bolstering our national competitiveness

Much of the good work that was contained in the legislation was a result of the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which was issued by the Academies of Science at the urging of several of us in the Senate. This report set out specific actions that needed to be taken by this country in order to keep our economy competitive in the world. Clearly, most of those recommendations have been adopted, and now they have been legislated into law as part of this America COMPETES Act.

I thank my colleagues--Senator Alexander, of course, Senator Domenici, Senator Ensign, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens. A great many people in the Senate had a major part in this legislation. I thank them.

I also want to particularly thank the staff. The hard work that went into this legislation was truly extraordinary. There were numerous staff from both sides of the aisle who worked very hard to make this effort a success.

From the Commerce Committee: Beth Bacon, Jeff Bingham, Jean Toal- Eisen, Christine Kurth, Chan Lieu, Jason Mulvihill, Floyd Deschamps, and H.J. Derr; from the HELP Committee: Beth Buehlman, David Cleary, Anne Clough, David Gruenbaum, Lindsay Hunsicker, David Johns, Carmel Martin, Roberto Rodriguez, Missy Rohrbach, Ilyse Schuman, and Emma Vadehra; from my personal staff: Michael Yudin, who does the work in our office on education issues, was an essential part of the effort from the very beginning and made enormous contributions to the education sections of the report; Melanie Roberts, an AAAS policy fellow in my office, did as well, worked hard; from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Bob Simon, our staff director; Mia Bennett; Kathryn Clay; Sam Fowler; Amanda Kelly; Judy Pensabene, who is the committee counsel for Senator Domenici; and Matt Zedler; on Senator Alexander's staff: Matt Sonnesyn and Jack Wells are the two with whom I am most familiar who have worked so hard; from Senator Lieberman's staff: Craig Robinson, Colleen Shogan, and Rachel Sotsky.

I also want to acknowledge the great work done by our leadership staff: Jason Unger and Mark Wetjen on Senator Reid's staff, and by Libby Jarvis on Senator McConnell's staff. Let me express my special thanks to the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office for their tireless work in getting this legislation ready so it could be completed before the August recess: Liz King coordinated the conference efforts with the utmost patience; John Baggaley, Gary Endicott, Gary Koster, Amy Gaynor, and Kristin Romero.

Finally, let me mention John Epstein in my own office and who works on the Energy Committee staff. I am convinced that if it were not for John's tireless efforts to move this legislation forward and his unfailing commitment to a collegial, bipartisan process, the bill would not have been able to be passed in this timeframe. I am extremely grateful to him for his persistence and integrity throughout the process. Also, let me particularly thank Trudy Vincent, my legislative director, for the great work she did on this legislation from its inception to its completion.

I yield the floor.