Floor Statements

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 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 purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on several bills, including: S. 1377, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the City of Henderson, Nevada, certain Federal land located in the City, and for other purposes; S. 1433, to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to provide competitive status to certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska; S. 1608 and H.R. 815, to provide for the! conveyance of certain land in Clark County, Nevada, for use by the Nevada National Guard S. 1740, to amend the Act of February 22, 1889, and the Act of July 2, 1862, to provide for the management of public land trust funds in the State of North Dakota; S. 1802, to adjust the boundaries of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in the State of Idaho; S. 1803, to authorize the exchange of certain land located in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 1939, to provide for the conveyance of certain land in the Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico; and S. 1940, to reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, 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].

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

Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. This amendment is an effort to inject a very highly contentious abortion rights issue into this children's health insurance legislation. I think it is a mistake for us to do that.

The underlying bill which came out of the Finance Committee protects the right of any State in the country to provide health care to pregnant women. It protects the rights specifically of the 11 States that are currently providing coverage under this unborn fetus regulation to continue to do that. So there is no need for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to engage in a colloquy with a number of colleagues who have been true leaders on one of the most challenging issues facing the world today climate change.

As I stated on the floor several weeks ago, the time for action is now. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty.

It is with this sense of urgency that I recently introduced, along with Senator Specter, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. S. 1766-- which is also supported by Senators Akaka, Murkowski, Casey, Stevens, and Harkin--is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis and enjoys the support of many in industry, labor and conservation.

Senator Specter and I are convinced--and I believe my good colleagues from Connecticut and Virginia would agree--that legislation can only attract the bipartisan support needed to put the United States on a path to a low carbon economy if it contains the following: No. 1. mandatory limits on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; No. 2, an economy- wide approach that meets the economic test of ``no significant harm''; No. 3. increased incentives to accelerate the development and deployment of low and zero emission technologies; No. 4. measures that strongly encourage our major trading partners to begin reducing emissions and that balance U.S. emission-reduction commitments with the necessity of engaging other countries; and No. 5. measures to allocate allowances under the program equitably and efficiently.

Ultimately I am optimistic about our ability to forge bipartisan resolution of all of these issues because there is now such broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on this issue. At the same time, I recognize that we have work left to do. Senator Specter and I today hosted a meeting among many of the Nation's leading power producers to explore some new ideas for allocating emission permits within the power sector. We were encouraged by this discussion and plan to broaden the discussion to include a wider array of consumer and environmental perspectives.

While the legislation we have introduced and the outline you are sharing today differ in some important respects, I believe that we have a great deal in common. Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner, I stand ready to work to address our differences in the interest in forging a broad consensus capable of passing legislation this year.

Mr. President, I thank my friends and colleagues for their remarks and their commitment. We must approach this issue in a thoughtful and constructive way. It is my hope that we can take action on this issue by the end of the year. Let's not wait any longer when we know the one course of action we can't afford or defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation reauthorizing the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, which became law in 1996. In the 10 years since it was formalized by Congress, the Rio Puerco Management Committee has helped facilitate a collaborative approach for the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco Watershed, which at 7,000 square miles is the largest tributary to the Rio Grande in terms of area and sediment.

The Rio Puerco was once known as New Mexico's breadbasket, with water supply and soil tilth to support that reputation. Over time, extensive ecological changes have occurred in the Rio Puerco Watershed, some of which have resulted in damage to the watershed that has seriously affected the economic and cultural well-being of its inhabitants. This has resulted in the loss of existing communities that were based on the land and were self-sustaining. According to the Bureau of Land Management, while the Rio Puerco contributes less than 10 percent of the total water to the Rio Grande, it represents the primary source of sedimentation entering the Upper Rio Grande with far reaching effects throughout the lower portions of the river. For example, the Rio Puerco contributes the majority of the silt entering Elephant Butte Reservoir about 65 miles downstream of its confluence with the Rio Grande.

The Rio Puerco Management Committee has become one of the most effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest, particularly given the challenges posed by the multi-jurisdictional nature of the watershed. It has successfully developed and implemented proposals for watershed rehabilitation on a collaborative basis with participation from private stakeholders, various Federal agencies, Native American Indian tribes, State agencies, and local governments. For example, the committee took on the bold proposal of returning the Rio Puerco to its original streambed, originally altered to accommodate the construction of State Highway 44, now U.S. Highway 550, in the late 1960s. According to the BLM, the channel became a primary contributor of erosion and sediment in the river main stem, and even began advancing toward U.S. 550, threatening the highways stability. This large-scale project is one of only three in the entire country that has attempted to reintroduce a channelized river into its original meander.

I am proud to say that the committee's holistic approach has also facilitated low-tech but time-intensive restoration projects and community outreach initiatives which have actively engaged community members and the Youth Conservation Corps. This has helped develop a sense of ownership and community responsibility for the restoration of the Rio Puerco while also providing our State's youth valuable resource management skills and teaching them how to be responsible stewards of the land now and in the future.

I am pleased Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this reauthorization bill, and I thank him for always being a strong advocate for this program. The Rio Puerco Management Committee has demonstrated the achievements that can be made by working cooperatively to advance the restoration of and maintenance of this watershed. It is also clear that more work needs to be done, and it is my sincere hope that the Congress and the administration will continue to work in a similar cooperative manner to ensure adequate funding is provided for this important program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, would the Chair please advise me when half the time allotted to me has been used?

Madam President, I wish to congratulate the majority leader for taking this time to bring the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program to the Senate floor. Since this program was created, through a bipartisan effort in 1997, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by millions. At the same time, the percentage of low-income children in the United States without health care coverage has fallen by a third. So this is a remarkable achievement, and this program is a large share of the reason for that achievement.

The program is critically important to my home State of New Mexico. It currently permits the State to cover over 14,000 low-income New Mexicans and will play a critical role in ensuring that all low-income New Mexicans have access to meaningful health care coverage. I strongly support the reauthorization we have reported from the Finance Committee. Of the many issues before the Senate, I believe reauthorizing this legislation needs to be at the top of our list.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a huge gap between what the administration would like to see done on this subject and what in fact is needed. The President has proposed such a small sum of new funding over the next 5 years, $1 billion per year of additional

funding, that if we were to accept that proposal, we would have a significant reduction in the size of the program and the number of children covered by the program.

Instead of reaching a larger percentage of the 9 million uninsured children in our Nation, the President's proposal would not add to the number of children covered. In fact, it would result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of low-income children losing their coverage.

I also wish to commend Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Hatch, all four of these individuals, who worked in a selfless and bipartisan way to come up with a proposal they could embrace and they could bring to the full Senate. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the $35 billion over 5 years authorized in this legislation will fill in the shortfalls in funding that have plagued the program for many years. It will allow us to expand coverage to nearly 4 million additional low-income children.

Although I strongly support this bipartisan compromise, there are several aspects of the legislation I hope we can still strengthen as we move forward. First, of course, I would like to see greater funding than the $35 billion over the next 5 years that is called for in this legislation. If we could go to the full $50 billion we provided for in the budget resolution, and that I believe the House is trying to enact, we could expand coverage to an additional 5 million children who would remain uninsured at the bill's current funding levels. So there are ways we can improve this bill.

I am also disappointed in changes that were made to coverage for adult populations in this program. I will not oppose the compromises that were reached on the issue, but I firmly believe the reauthorization program should not result in the narrowing of the flexibility States have had through this program to cover uninsured populations, including adults. In particular, let me discuss a little of the rhetoric that has circulated around this subject.

Coverage of adults is very important to the efforts of my State and other States in our efforts to cover low-income parents and childless adults, but in fact, this program is overwhelmingly a program that is focused on providing coverage to children. Less than 10 percent of the coverage under the SCHIP program currently goes to adults. I believe that has been somewhat taken out of context by many who have discussed the issue.

We should also note States are relying on waivers in covering the adults who are covered under the program. States are relying on waivers, most of which were approved and authorized in this Bush administration, to cover these populations. These are not Democratic- proposed waivers, these are waivers a Republican administration has approved. Tommy Thompson, our former Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush, in his first term stated in 2005, upon approving New Mexico's ability to cover adult populations:

This approval means health coverage for tens of thousands

of uninsured New Mexico residents--including many uninsured

parents whose children are already covered. By giving States

like New Mexico greater flexibility in the way they provide

health care to low-income citizens, we are helping millions

of people across the country to gain access to quality health

care.

Madam President, how much time remains for my half?

Madam President, let me also go to one other issue which I think is important to deal with, another shortfall in this legislation, and that is the failure of the program to provide dental coverage.

According to the Children's Dental Health Project, of the 4 million children born each year in the United States, more than a quarter of them will have cavities by the time they are toddlers, and more than half will have cavities by the time they reach second grade. This is concentrated in low-income rural children who suffer disproportionately from these problems.

I believe strongly the Children's Health Insurance Program should be expanded to cover dental care for children across this country, low- income children. This is something we are not able to do as part of this legislation, but I hope we can revisit this issue before final action is taken.

A final issue I wanted to discuss relates to important improvements in legislation I hope we can make for legal immigrant children and legal pregnant women. Under current law, these individuals are prohibited from receiving most CHIP or Medicaid coverage for the first 5 years they are resident in the United States on a legal basis. Very often these children and these legal pregnant women, U.S. citizen children I point out, will become eligible for CHIP and Medicaid. It is counterproductive to prevent these legal immigrants from accessing services at the time they become legal residents of our country.

Today there is a 5-year bar in place to them receiving Medicaid and CHIP coverage. It exists even though the vast majority of these immigrants are working or are in families with working parents and are therefore paying Federal and State taxes. They contribute significantly to the system, but they are barred from receiving the services they are subsidizing. I highlight that legislation to remove this 5-year bar. I want to highlight that this proposal to remove the 5-year bar has bipartisan support. It has passed the Senate as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. I hope very much that before we complete action and send the bill to the President, we can deal with this issue here.

I urge each Member of the Senate to focus on what is the important work that we can accomplish in the Senate, how we can help the lives of children growing up in this country, and how we can make them more productive citizens in the future. Expanding this health care coverage to cover more children is obviously the first and best thing we can do. I hope very much we can pass this bill, go to conference with the House, and come up with a bill the President can be persuaded to sign.

Again, I congratulate the Finance Committee for the good work they have done bringing the legislation to the full Senate.

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. The hearing will be held on August 14, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., at the Clovis- Carver Library, North Annex, located at 701 N. Main Street in Clovis,

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 Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on August 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1054 and H.R. 122, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling project and in the Cucamonga Valley Water District recycling project; S. 1472, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to create a Bureau of Reclamation partnership with the North Bay Water Reuse Authority and other regional partners to achieve objectives relating to water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration; S. 1475 and H.R. 1526, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes; H.R. 30, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act

to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water System Pressurization and Expansion Project; H.R. 609, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1175, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

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: Gina [email protected].

For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

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

Mr. President, I call up Senate amendment No. 2388 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is aimed at providing needed assistance to law enforcement agencies to address the problem of criminal activity along our Nation's borders. The legislation is cosponsored by myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Cornyn. It has passed the Senate on two previous occasions, including last year as part of the Senate's 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

Specifically, the amendment establishes a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement that is situated along our borders to cover some of the costs they incur as a result of having to deal with illegal immigration, with drug trafficking, with stolen vehicles, and with other border-related crimes. The amendment authorizes $50 million a year to enable law enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional personnel and obtain the equipment and cover the overtime and transportation costs they incur in these activities. Law enforcement outside of this geographic limit that is provided for in the amendment would be eligible if the Secretary of Homeland Security certified that they were located in a ``High Impact Area.''

The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies that are located along these borders are small, rural departments that are charged with patrolling large areas of land with very few officers and very limited resources. According to a 2001 study of the U.S.- Mexico Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million each year. Counties along the southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in a good position to cover these additional costs.

For far too long, local law enforcement agencies operating along our borders have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognize that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I am informed this amendment has been cleared by both sides, and I think we are ready to go to a vote on it, unless the managers wish additional debate.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 31, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on renewable fuels infrastructure.

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 e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley 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 an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 1, 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 recent advances in clean coal technology, including the prospects for deploying these technologies at a commercial scale in the near future.

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 e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Michael Carr 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 Tuesday, August 7, 2007, from 9 to 11 a.m., in the Galisteo Room of the Albuquerque Convention Center, 401 2nd Street, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Reducing Barriers to Growth of Emerging Energy Technologies--Relationships Between Federal, State and Local Governments.

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 e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Rachel Pasternack.

Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their leadership in getting this higher education bill to the floor. I know they have worked on it for many years now. As I understand it, the current Higher Education Act, which we have had to extend, was scheduled to expire in 2004. We are now getting around to actually passing a reauthorization of that legislation, which I think is very important to do.

Last week, we overwhelmingly approved the student aid package that promises millions of students the ability to afford college. That package included more than $17 billion in student aid over 5 years. For my State of New

Mexico, that translated into $177 million of new aid for New Mexico students and their families over the next 5 years.

I was glad to be part of the committee that prepared that legislation. I am glad to see it passed by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 18. But financial assistance is only one part of the puzzle, as Senator Enzi pointed out. We need to do more, and the legislation before us today gives us the ability to do more.

First, we need to do more to address the increasing cost of attending college. Second, we need to ensure more students graduate from college and are prepared to succeed in this 21st-century global economy. And, third, we need to reform the student loan system so it works better for students rather than just for lenders.

I believe this legislation accomplishes all three of those objectives.

These higher education amendments of 2007 have a number of provisions designed to address the rising cost of college. We have all talked about the rising cost of college. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than it was last year, and the average cost of going to a 4-year college is $13,000 this year. The bill sets forth a comprehensive approach to addressing these problems.

First, the amendments will establish a higher education price index to accurately reflect annual changes in tuition and fees for undergraduate students. The Secretary of Education will be required to report annually in a national list and in a list for each State a ranking of colleges according to the extent of changes they have made in their tuition and fees.

The Secretary is also required to establish a higher education price increase watch list in order to hold colleges accountable for their rising costs by publicizing those colleges where increases are the highest.

Second, the bill makes significant changes to the financial aid process. It makes Pell grants available to students all year round so they can take courses during the summer, and they can finish college earlier. It will also simplify the forms that these students have to complete.

The bill also removes barriers for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency so they can apply for financial aid.

These amendments provide a number of types of loan forgiveness, scholarships, and fellowship opportunities. Let me mention just a few. The bill provides loan forgiveness for early childhood educators, including Head Start teachers and preschool program instructors, full- time faculty members of tribal colleges and universities, school librarians, speech and language pathologists, and members of the Armed Forces. It authorizes graduate fellowships for minority students and women.

We need to increase the number of students who can succeed and graduate from college, and this bill places great emphasis on activities that not only help high school students prepare for college but help those same students succeed in college and graduate from college.

The higher education amendments improve student academic readiness for college by strengthening the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. For example, the bill requires GEAR UP partnerships to systematically change the way schools prepare students for college. It requires States and school districts to encourage more students to enroll in rigorous high school course work and emphasizes activities that will support the development of college prep curricula, including advanced placement courses. The bill also strengthens the TRIO programs by establishing outcome criteria for measuring the quality and effectiveness of the programs around the country.

The bill includes a provision that I authored that creates a new grant program to assist colleges and universities that serve large numbers of Native American students. Currently, there is no particular Federal program to assist nontribal schools that provide educational services and support to large Native American student populations. We have a number of such schools in my home State of New Mexico such as San Juan College, University of New Mexico in Gallup, New Mexico State University in Grants, and the Eastern New Mexico campus in Ruidoso.

The bill provides grants to such colleges to improve and expand their capacity to serve Native American students through such activities as curriculum development, academic instruction, faculty development, acquisition of education instruction, research equipment, and a variety of other activities.

The higher education amendments also improve programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work to enter and succeed in college. This is very important.

In addition, the bill authorizes funding for the Navajo Technical College to help pay the costs to operate postsecondary career and technical educational programs for Native American students. This authorization will significantly increase the Navajo Technical College's ability to provide high-quality career and technical training to ensure that Native American students graduate with the skills needed to succeed in this economy.

I am also very glad this legislation contains provisions from the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act of 2007. This is legislation that I introduced, along with Senator Hutchison and others, to establish a long overdue Hispanic-serving institution graduate program.

Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year colleges. The percentage of Hispanic students attending college has increased significantly in recent years. Unfortunately, Hispanic students are woefully underrepresented in the graduate programs around our country, and this legislation will try to help solve that problem.

The higher education amendments will also require teacher preparation programs to substantially improve over the next several years.

Finally, as we see the price of college rising steadily, an increased number of students are forced to rely on loans in order to finance their education. We have seen from recent investigations that some lenders in the Student Loan Program, and even some financial aid officers, have been exploiting the student loan system to the detriment of the very students they are meant to help.

This reauthorization will make a number of very important changes to the Student Loan Program. It will ensure that colleges recommend lenders to their students based on the best interest of the students and not on the self-interests of the financial aid officers.

Further, it will prohibit payments or gifts or other inducements from lenders to colleges or to financial aid administrators that constitute a conflict of interest.

Importantly, it will require colleges to establish and follow a code of conduct with respect to student loans.

Let me reiterate that this is extremely important legislation. I commend the majority leader for bringing it to the Senate floor. I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their bipartisan effort to move this legislation forward. Together with the student aid package that we approved last week, this legislation will allow us to make college accessible to all and affordable for every family in this country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns be given floor privileges for the duration of this debate: Kelly Shepherd, Christopher Schmidt, and Shannon Saltclah.

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 August 2, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, a bill to establish a fund for the National Park Centennial Challenge, 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, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to, [email protected].

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack 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 Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on July 26, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 300, to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for other purposes; S. 1258, to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities; S. 1477, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project in the State of Colorado; S. 1522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2014, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1025, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas.

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

For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. President, could I advise my colleague from Michigan that I believe the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, was here planning to speak before I spoke. So on the Democratic side it would be Senator Nelson, and then Senator Lautenberg, and then myself.

Mr. President, in October 2002, this Chamber gathered to consider one of the most serious decisions I have been involved in confronting in the 25 years I have been in the Senate. That was a decision on whether to grant President Bush authority to invade Iraq. At that time, nearly 5 years ago, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, believing that it was necessary to give the United Nations weapons inspectors the time they needed to determine whether Iraq did, in fact, possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I believe that we needed to gather the facts and we needed to make an informed decision as to whether Iraq posed such a terrible and immediate threat to our country that regime change was warranted. As we all know now, the weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found.

Unfortunately, the weapons of mass destruction were not the only thing the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and other members of the administration were wrong about when it came to beginning this war. They were also wrong in thinking that we could succeed in Iraq without substantial help from our allies. They were wrong to reject warnings that the invasion would fracture Iraq's delicate sectarian balance. They were wrong to dismiss legitimate questions about how we would rebuild Iraq's civil society. They were wrong to think that Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia, in particular, would ignore their opportunity to fill a regional power vacuum after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. They were wrong to promise the American people, as Secretary Rumsfeld's assistant, Ken Adelman, did, that Iraq would be a ``cakewalk.''

My statement at that time, nearly 5 years ago, was the following:

If war must be waged, other countries should be there with

us sharing the costs and helping to restore stability in what

will almost certainly be the tumultuous aftermath of military

action.

Mr. President, ``tumultuous'' only begins to describe the calamity we face in Iraq today. Almost 5 years have passed since that October day. Five years is longer than it took Presidents Roosevelt and Truman to defeat the Axis Powers in World War II.

Today, Iraq is diverting the United States from other very important foreign policy matters. First, of course, it is diverting us from the fight against terrorist networks worldwide. Second, it is diverting us from responding to the rise of China as a world power. Third, it is diverting us from reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels and particularly lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Fourth, it is diverting us from keeping our country economically competitive during this era of globalization.

Respect for America around the world has eroded dramatically as a result of this war. To many around the world, the symbol of our country today is no longer the Statue of Liberty; instead, it is Abu Ghraib.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney often tell us that we are in Iraq to fight the terrorists who attacked us on September 11.

In his 2003 State of the Union speech, the President told us that Saddam ``aids and protects'' terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.

In 2004, the Vice President promised ``ample evidence confirming the link . . . between al-Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services.''

In 2005, the President said:

They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they

tried to shake our will on September 11.

In March, Vice President Cheney said:

Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be

more plain. . . . As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe

there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that

came to us that day.

Just last week, as many speakers have reiterated, President Bush said:

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq

were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th.

So the administration has been consistent in its formulation of this problem. The truth is, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He did not support al-Qaida before September 11, and al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq prior to that date. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his regime posed little immediate threat to the United States or its allies. The Baath party, as a secular Arab nationalist movement, had no history of cooperation with al-Qaida or other Islamist movements.

The truth is that al-Qaida's offshoot, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, is in Iraq today because of our decision to invade. As the Washington Post pointed out recently, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is an Iraqi phenomenon. Its membership is largely Iraqi. It derives its primary financing indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And those terrorists and would-be terrorists who have come to Iraq from other countries would not have been there absent this conflict.

Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia thrives over Sunni grievances over our occupation of that country. Our continued occupation of that country is its best recruiting tool.

President Bush has treated terrorism as a monolith. As David Kilcullen, a counterterrorism analyst, has written, the President has lumped together all terrorism, all rogue states, all strategic competitors.

Lumping every dangerous terrorist movement together profoundly misconstrues the nature of terrorism and, in fact, encourages eclectic groups to collaborate. It places our Nation in greater jeopardy, not less jeopardy.

So the question today is, where do we go from here?

The fundamental problem in Iraq today is not a lack of U.S. troops; it is an absence of national reconciliation. The U.S. role in Iraq should not be to police an endless civil war. Rather, it should be to facilitate a settlement among the parties themselves.

The President has belatedly realized that we did not marshal enough troops to stabilize Iraq following our invasion in 2002. But today, merely adding troops is not the solution. The administration's ongoing troop surge is unlikely to prove effective absent a broader political settlement.

If current trends continue, our policy will be, de facto, one of siding with the Shia over the Sunnis. The Shia-led government knows this. It has, therefore, played for time by clinging to the status quo, by dragging its feet on national reconciliation. The Shia-led government has shown little sign that it appreciates the need for accommodation of national minorities. It has missed the most important milestones that have been identified by the Iraq Study Group and by this Congress.

The administration's own benchmark report released several days ago reports unsatisfactory progress on debaathification, on passage of an oil law, on holding provincial elections, on disarming militias. The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission has failed to make adequate progress.

There has been progress on other benchmarks. I welcome that progress. But these were second-order issues compared to the challenge of national reconciliation. And the bloodshed continues.

Going forward we need to focus on two objectives.

First, we need to send the Iraqi ruling elite a crisp and credible signal that our commitment to maintaining forces in that country is not unconditional. Only by making this point loud and clear do we create the possibility that the Shia-led government will take the painful steps necessary toward national reconciliation.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to do what it can to create a degree of political stability in Iraq. But I repeat the key phrase in that sentence, ``do what we can,'' for we can do no more.

Our commitment to Iraq is not openended. We cannot impose a political settlement without the cooperation of the political elites in the country. The Iraqis themselves must want a solution.

Second, we need to draw down U.S. troop presence in a responsible way. Too precipitous a withdrawal will undermine the credibility of America's commitment to facilitating a political settlement in the country. We need to provide a carrot by allowing for the continued presence of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping capacity if the Iraqi Government does bring about some measure of national reconciliation.

It is because of these two principles that I supported the first supplemental appropriation this spring. That legislation set a firm date for beginning withdrawal. That was the stick.

It set a date for completing withdrawal. This arrangement left open the possibility of leaving some U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq if, ultimately, the factions forged a political settlement. That was the carrot.

This approach remains sound today. And today, with these objectives, in mind, I would urge five steps that we must take in Iraq.

First, we need to announce a firm deadline to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The credible threat of a withdrawal, perhaps more than withdrawal itself, may convince the Iraqi ruling elite of the need to accommodate national minorities. The mere threat of a withdrawal says that our commitment to Iraq is not unconditional. It proclaims that we will not preserve the failed status quo.

I applaud my colleagues, such as Senator Levin, Senator Reed and Senator Feingold, for fighting for a firm deadline. They may disagree on the specifics of withdrawal.

But they do agree that if they do not continue to push for a firm timetable, the Bush administration will cling to that failed status quo.

The fact that the administration is even considering alternatives is a direct result of our decision to push for some change in direction by a specific date.

Second, we must form a multinational working group to discuss the way forward in Iraq.

It is crucial for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to be involved. They have historical and religious links to national minorities in Iraq. They have the most to lose by continued instability there. We cannot achieve any political settlement in Iraq without their active participation.

Third, this group--not the Iraqi Government--should convene a Dayton- style multinational conference to help Iraq's factions forge a political settlement.

Fourth, such a settlement would provide for a negotiated withdrawal of U.S. combat troops, as the Iraq Study Group prescribes. If appropriate, other U.S. troops could stay, ideally as part of a multinational or U.N. peacekeeping force.

Finally, we should implement the other recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including using our good offices to mediate other conflicts in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should begin by appointing a special envoy to the region, and I applaud his announcement yesterday of a resumption in aid to West Bank Palestinians.

I conclude my remarks by saluting the servicemen of my home State who have given their lives while answering our Nation's call to duty in Iraq.

I have asked the Pentagon for an accounting of all New Mexican service personnel who have died in Iraq to this date, and that is the accounting I will go through at this time.

While the people of New Mexico and of our entire Nation mourn their loss, we will always celebrate the lives they led and the sacrifices they made for our country.

Marine LCpl Christopher Adlesperger, 20, of Albuquerque, NM, attended the University of New Mexico before joining the Marine Corps in 2003. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Fallujah on November 10, 2004.

SGT James Akin, 23, of Albuquerque, NM, is quoted by the Albuquerque Tribune as saying, ``Live life to serve, because you can. Dissent, because you can. Enjoy freedom, because you can. Remember always that the measure of our progress is not whether we can provide more for those who have plenty, but whether we can provide enough to those who have little.'' He is survived by his wife and his father.

SGT Matthew Apuan, 27, was a 1998 graduate of Mayfield High School in Las Cruces. He was on his second tour in Iraq when he died near Baghdad on February 18, 2007.

LCpl Aaron Austin, 21, a Lovington, NM, native, was killed in Fallujah, Iraq, on April 26, 2004. Austin proposed to his girlfriend over the phone from Iraq while on his second tour of duty.

PFC Henry Byrd III, 20, of Veguita, NM, graduated from Belen High School in 2004. Before enlisting, Byrd was a volunteer firefighter in his community.

CPL Lyle Cambridge, 23, of Shiprock, NM, and a member of the Navajo Nation, joined the Army in May of 2002. After his death in Baghdad on July 5, 2005, Lyle's sister said she couldn't remember ever seeing her brother mad. One of her fondest memories of her brother is that he bought his older sister a new Easter dress every year.

SP Roberto Causor, Jr., 21, was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, in Fort Bragg, NC. He died on July 7, 2007. His parents reside in Rio Rancho,

Mr. President, I rise to speak, first, in favor of the legislation Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have brought to the Senate floor and also to speak in opposition to an amendment I understand is going to be offered to this bill at some point in the proceedings.

But let me begin by congratulating Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their good work. This is a very major step forward in providing the resources young people in this country, not just young people but all Americans, need in order to pursue postsecondary education.

It is a very major step forward. I am proud to be a supporter of this legislation and proud to be part of the committee that Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi chair and are the ranking member of.

We all know the costs of going to college have skyrocketed in recent years. We have seen a 35-percent jump in tuition, adjusted average tuition and fees, for instate students at public colleges and universities since the 2001-2002 school year.

This 35-percent increase represents the largest increase in any 5- year period since the Government has been keeping track of these figures. This year alone, the cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than it was last year, averaging $12,796, including room and board in our schools.

At the same time, we are seeing increased competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. These students command high tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there is a smaller proportion of financial aid budgets available for low-income students at colleges with rising tuitions.

Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise the amount of Pell grant scholarships for needy students. Congress finally did increase Pell grants this year for the first time in many years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition and fees and room and board at a public 4-year college.

Last year, the maximum Pell grant covered only 35 percent of those costs. I have a chart I wish to show to make that point. This chart is entitled, ``The Gap Between Grant Aid and Cost of Attendance to Increase.''

You can see the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is the red column, for each of those years starting with the 2001-2002 school year and ending with the 2006-2007 school year.

So the red column is the cost of attendance, and the white column is the maximum Pell grant. You can see it has been virtually stagnant during this same period. As the chart demonstrates, the gap between grant aid that is available to low-income students and what it costs to go to college has increased very substantially since 2001.

In the 2006-2007 school year, that is the school year that we just completed, the average student came up short by almost $9,000. I submit it is a disgrace for us nationally each year to allow hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend 4-year colleges to fail to do so because of the inability to deal with the financial barriers they face. More and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. We have seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country.

Let me show another chart. ``Students Are Borrowing More,'' is the title of this chart. And then the subtitle is: ``From 1993 to 2004, the average amount of total student loan debt for 4-year college graduates has more than doubled.''

In 1993, you can see the figure in this column, $9,250, that is the average student debt at the end of a 4-year college. In 2004, the average debt for a student who finishes a 4-year college and graduates is over $19,000. This chart demonstrates, I think very clearly, we have students graduating with too much student loan debt.

In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 of debt. The good news is the underlying bill, that is, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, will actually increase student aid by about $17.3 billion over the next 5 years.

Most importantly, this very significant increase does not add to our national debt. It is paid for by cutting excessive Federal subsidies to lenders who are participating in the student loan program.

I have one more chart I wish to use to make a point. This chart is called, ``The Senate Proposal Increases Grant Aid for Students.'' This chart demonstrates the bill substantially increases Pell grants to $5,100 this next year and to $5,400 by 2011.

Under the proposal, the maximum Pell grant would increase by $790 next year alone. In addition, the bill will simplify the financial aid process for low-income students by increasing the income level at which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant. Also, it will protect working students, increasing the amount of student income that is sheltered from the financial aid process.

This new student aid package could mean as much as $177 million in new grant aid for students in my State of New Mexico alone over the next 5 years. This increase would mean almost $41 million for students attending the University of New Mexico during this next 5-year period; almost $44 million for students attending New Mexico State University; $15 million for students attending Eastern New Mexico University; more than $6 million for students attending Western New Mexico University; and more than $5 million for students attending New Mexico Highlands University.

The bill also would cap Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. This would bring needed relief to students who do have excessive debt. In addition, the bill advances a critical policy objective, that is, to incentivize students to pursue careers in public service.

The bill would forgive the debt of borrowers who work in public service careers, careers such as nursing and teaching and law enforcement, for a 10-year period. So the package is vital to the students in my State of New Mexico, to their families, and to our economy.

Unfortunately, the amendment that I understand is going to be proposed to this bill is an amendment that Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Burr of North Carolina will offer. This amendment would strip $3 billion from the student aid package and put these critical Federal dollars into the wallet of the large for-profit lenders.

Let me state for the record I strongly support the Federal Family Education Loan Program. This is also known as the FFEL Program.

Most Senators understand this program is essential to helping so many students and their families gain access to college. Frankly, you don't know how many of New Mexico's students would be able to gain access to college without this program.

The underlying bill, however, recognizes, as did the President in his fiscal year 2008 budget, that FFEL lenders are very heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. Currently, these lenders are guaranteed a specified interest rate by law regardless of what the student borrower pays.

This rate is 2.34 percent higher than commercial paper. The President proposed to reduce the subsidy by one-half of a percent, by 50 basis points. Similarly, the underlying bill reduces the subsidy by half of a percent for most of these lenders.

The main discrepancy, however, is the underlying bill recognizes the critical role many of our State and private nonprofit lenders play in administering the FFEL Program, and it imposes a smaller reduction on them. I believe this is a fair and an equitable approach.

In my State, we have such a program. New Mexico Student Loans is a private, nonprofit corporation. It was created by the New Mexico State Legislature in 1981, to provide loans and educational programs and systems to New Mexico students and families, ensuring the broadest possible access to higher education for citizens of our State.

Nonprofit lenders, such as New Mexico Student Loans, are limited by law in how they can use their revenues. If they earn more than the funds have cost them, they either have to use that revenue to reduce the cost of loans to students or send that funding back to the U.S. Treasury. The savings realized by nonprofits are returned to the students through zero-fee loans, through reduced interest rates, through principal forgiveness, for ontime payments, and specialized reduced interest rates and loan forgiveness programs for teachers and nurses and doctors.

In New Mexico alone, $8.6 million was returned to the borrowers through borrower benefits and loan forgiveness in 2006. For-profit lenders, on the other hand, returned these earnings not to the students, not to the borrowers but instead to their own shareholders. For example, New Mexico Student Loans charges 0 percent interest for teachers if they stay and teach in New Mexico; it charges 0 percent interest for nurses and doctors who practice in our State.

These programs are necessary to fill critical workforce shortages in my State. Unfortunately, the Nelson-Burr amendment would eliminate the distinction between the nonprofit lenders and the for-profit lenders, many of them very large organizations such as Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Bank of America, Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase.

It would eliminate that distinction between the nonprofits and the for-profits by lowering the subsidy cut for the for-profit lenders to the same rate we are providing for nonprofits.

The proponents of the amendments argue this amendment is about increasing student choice and protecting the student loan program. I respectfully disagree with that argument. To the contrary, the amendment would do nothing to increase student choice; rather it would provide a significantly greater competitive advantage to big banks and lenders, thereby forcing smaller lenders out of business.

Unfortunately, this amendment which is anticipated will be offered, the Nelson-Burr amendment, would literally strip $3 billion from the funds available for low-income students and significantly hinder the ability of many nonprofit lenders to provide critical student services and benefits.

I am afraid the amendment is nothing more than an attempt to protect the huge profits of large lenders and further enrich their shareholders at the expense of low-income students and the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment if it is offered, as I understand it will be.

To conclude, I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their leadership in developing this legislation and bringing it to the Senate. I hope very much we can move ahead with it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President today I am introducing a bill with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer entitled ``the Border Health Security Act of 2007.'' This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.

The U.S.-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents.

The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 native american tribes, and 4 States in the U.S. and 6 States in Mexico.

Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. Yet, the situation along the border is among the most dire in the country.

In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S. are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the Nation.

In a recent report by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes.

The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with few resources.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005, for the 3-year average of 2002 to 2004, the States of Texas and New Mexico rank first and second as the States with the highest uninsured rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively.

However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than twice the U.S. rate of 14.2 percent.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes:

The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border

health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial

resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health

professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of

health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to

health services out of reach for many border residents and

thus keeps the border communities at risk.

The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its health border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.

However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer, would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities about how to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health; health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,