Floor Statements

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,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be allowed floor privileges during today's session of the Senate: Erin McGuire, Maureen McGuire, Owen Thal, Samantha Currier, and Sonia Russo.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that his fellow, Taniesha Woods, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the higher education reconciliation bill.

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 Thursday, July 19, 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 S. 1634, a bill to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, 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 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 ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 12 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices.

I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress.

The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States.

First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty.

As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future.

Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge.

It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.

My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate.

My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor.

This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change.

As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill.

Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress.

My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions.

The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs.

I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single

Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security.

Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.

Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges.

This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done.

Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution.

But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy.

We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense.

The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen.

This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible.

My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action.

There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies.

Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions.

Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way.

In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves.

I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor.

Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices.

I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress.

The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States.

First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty.

As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future.

Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge.

It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.

My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate.

My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor.

This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change.

As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill.

Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress.

My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions.

The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs.

I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single

Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security.

Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.

Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges.

This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done.

Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution.

But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy.

We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense.

The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen.

This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible.

My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action.

There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies.

Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions.

Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way.

In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves.

I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor.

Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act at the request of the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Honorable Kessai Note. For over 50 years, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and its predecessor committees, have worked with the government of the Marshall Islands to respond to the tragic consequences of the U.S. nuclear weapons tests that were conducted in the islands from 1946 to 1958, when the islands were a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

The U.S. nuclear testing program raises powerful emotions, and difficult legal and political issues which complicate discussion. Of particular concern to some is that the question of the adequacy of the compensation paid by the U.S. is now before the U.S. Court of Claims. On May 10, I met with President Note during his trip to Washington and we discussed our shared desire to move forward on several issues. We agreed that is it important for our nations to continue to work together on other matters which are not in litigation, such as possible adjustments to programs that are important to the communities affected by the tests.

I compliment President Note for his leadership, and for his thoughtful recommendation on how to approach these sensitive issues. The President proposed the introduction of legislation, at his request, that would propose solutions on several issues that are not before the court. This would allow the

committee to hear formally from the administration and from the RMI government on whether the proposals should be adopted, or whether to consider alternatives. I concur in this approach along with several of my colleagues on the committee and we are committed to working with the RMI and the administration to seek agreement.

It is important to note that any further compensation provided by the U.S. under this act would be made on an ex gratia basis. U.S. administration of the RMI ended in 1986 when the RMI gained sovereign self-government pursuant to the Compact of Free Association, as approved by the Compact Act, P.L. 99-239. The compact provides two methods of compensation, under the legal settlement and under an authorization for ex gratia assistance. Section 177 of the compact approved a legal settlement which provided: a $150 million Nuclear Claims Trust Fund; the establishment of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to adjudicate claims and pay awards; and it allows the RMI to request additional compensation if there are ``changed circumstances,'' that is, if information and injuries come to light after the settlement date which renders compensation under the settlement inadequate. Congress also included an authorization, under subsection 105(c) of the Compact Act, for additional ex gratia compensation to the communities of the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik, and for supplemental health care.

In 2000, the RMI submitted a petition to Congress contending that there have been ``changed circumstances'' and requesting some $3 billion for payment of the Tribunal's personal injury awards, replenishment of the Trust Fund, payment of the Tribunal's property damage awards, funding for national health care infrastructure and operations, and monitoring of Runit Island in Enewetak Atoll by a U.S. agency.

In 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the petition, S. Hrg. 109-178, and the administration testified in opposition to additional compensation on the basis that the requests did not meet the necessary legal tests: that injuries or damage must be a result of the nuclear tests; that they have arisen or been discovered after the effective date of the settlement; and that they could not reasonably have been identified as of the effective date of the settlement. The administration and other witnesses also questioned the RMI's contention that radiation affected an area beyond the four northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, and questioned the policies and methodologies used by the Tribunal in determining eligibility for compensation and the amount of awards. Nevertheless, the report by the administration on the RMI petition noted that, while certain requests do not qualify as changed circumstances, ``such programs might be desirable''.

The legislation being introduced today has provisions regarding four such requests for assistance that I agree with President Note should be given consideration by the Congress.

Runit Island: Between 1977 and 1980, the U.S. conducted a cleanup of some of the contaminated areas of Enewetak Atoll where 43 tests were conducted. Some of the contaminated soil and debris was relocated to Runit Island, mixed with concrete, and placed in Cactus crater that had been formed by one of the tests. Under the compact's nuclear claims settlement, the Marshall Islands accepted full legal responsibility for, and control over the utilization of areas in the Marshall Islands affected by the testing. In addition, however, the 1986 Compact Act, P.L. 99-239, reaffirmed the 1980 authorization, under P.L. 96-205, for a program now operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, for medical care and environmental monitoring relating to the testing program. Since then, the people of Enewetak Atoll have from time-to- time asked DOE to include monitoring of conditions at Runit within the scope of DOE's environmental monitoring program in order to assure the people living on other islands in Enewetak Atoll that there is no health risk from the material at Runit. DOE's whole body measurements of people living in the atoll shows that there is no increased risk and DOE has indicated that additional surveys should be carefully considered by Congress. Section 2 of this act would direct the Secretary of Energy, as a part of the existing monitoring program, to periodically survey radiological conditions regarding Runit and report to the Congress.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, EEOICPA: This program was enacted in 2001 to provide compensation for DOE and contractor employees associated with the Nation's nuclear weapons program. During Senate debate, I submitted a list of facilities intended to be covered which included ``Marshall Islands Test Sites, but only for the period after December 31, 1958.'' However, the 75 Marshall Islands citizens who applied to the program were denied on the basis that Congress did not intend the law to cover those who were not U.S. citizens. I believe that this was an incorrect reading of Congressional intent and I can find nothing in the statute or legislative history that supports this conclusion. It is important to recognize that during the testing and clean-up period the Marshall Islands was a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and that the U.S. and its contractors employed workers from the Marshall Islands and from neighboring Districts in the Trust Territory.

Section 3 of this act would clarify that former Trust Territory citizens are eligible, and it would coordinate benefits with the Compact of Free Association so that if a person received compensation under the compact, that amount would be deducted from any award received under the EEOICPA.

Four Atoll Health Care Program: Section 177 of the Compact approved the legal settlement of claims resulting from the nuclear testing program and provided $150 million to capitalize the Trust Fund. Among the uses for these funds was an allocation of $2 million annually to provide health care for those communities most affected by the tests: Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap and Utrik. However, practical problems developed with the program. First, enrollment was expanded beyond those members of the communities who were likely to have been exposed to radiation, so that the funds available for each beneficiary was significantly reduced. Second, the Fund became depleted and the $2 million annual payment was terminated in 2003. To continue some level of service under the program, the RMI and the U.S. Congress continued to contribute funds on a discretionary basis until a longer-term solution could be developed. During a trip to the RMI in the summer of 2006, Senate staff met with officials of the RMI Ministry of Health and of the 177 Healthcare Program and outlined a possible new approach for supplemental health care. Instead of providing benefits to a pool of enrolled beneficiaries, the funding would be targeted geographically to support a primary care clinic in each of the affected communities. This approach has the advantage of assuring primary health care in these remote outer island communities and of avoiding the problem of over- subscription of the program in the urban centers where hospital facilities are available.

Section 4 of the bill would authorize $2 million annually through 2023 for the continuation of this approach of supporting health care clinics in the outer island communities most affected by the tests. I believe that this proposal is an appropriate place to continue the discussion with the RMI and U.S. officials on how supplemental health care assistance to the RMI could most effectively be used in the future to meet the needs of affected communities.

Impact Assessment: Underlying the debate between the U.S. and the RMI regarding compensation for injuries resulting from the testing program is a fundamental dispute over the extent of the affected area. The U.S. believes that the effects were practically limited to the four northern atolls of Rongelap, Utrik, Bikini, and Enewetak. However, the RMI and the Nuclear Claims Tribunal took the position that all 1958 residents of the RMI would be eligible to file claims for injuries resulting from the tests. Section 5 of the bill is intended to resolve this dispute by having the National Academy of Sciences conduct an assessment of the health impacts of the testing program.

It is my intention to hold a hearing on the bill later this year. I look forward to continuing to work with President Note, my colleagues, and the administration on these proposals to respond, in part, to the legacy of our Nation's nuclear testing program in the Islands.

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 an additional item has been added to the agenda of a previously announced hearing.

On Thursday, June 28, 2007, I announced that a hearing would be held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 12, 2007, to consider pending nominations, including the nomination of Clarence H. Albright of South Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa E. Epifani of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; and James L. Caswell of Idaho, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Since that announcement was made, the nomination of Brent T. Wahlquist of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and added to the agenda of the Thursday, July 12 hearing.

As previously announced, the hearing will convene at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-266 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those Wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record, however, may 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 Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Committee on Indian Affairs

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, July 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Clarence H. Albright, of South Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa E. Epifani, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; and, James L. Caswell, of Idaho, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

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 Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks.

The hearing will be held on July 12, 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. 488 and H.R. 1100, to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina; S. 617, to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at a discount to certain veterans; S. 824 and H.R. 995, to amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; S. 955, to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area; S. 1148, to establish the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission; S. 1182, to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the act; S. 1380, to designate as wilderness certain land within the Rocky Mountain National Park and to adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National Forest in the State of Colorado; and S. 1728, to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko- Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act of 2007.

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.

Madam President, last night the Senate worked late to produce an energy bill. I believe it is a good bill. It does not contain all I had

hoped it would. Obviously, I regret that we were not able to go ahead with a vote on a renewable energy or electricity standard and also that we were not able to invoke cloture on the tax title of the bill. Nonetheless, I do think the bill will make important contributions to our energy security. I am proud to have worked on it with my colleagues.

Much has been said about the bill, and I am not going to debate the issues involved again today. We spent 9 days debating the bill and filled many pages of the Congressional Record with that debate. But I would like to thank the many members of the Senate staff who have invested such long hours and enormous effort over the last couple of months to make this bill possible.

In the hurry to get the vote accomplished last night, it was not possible to express appreciation to these staff members whose assistance was absolutely invaluable.

First and foremost, I thank Bob Simon, the staff director of our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. His knowledge of the issues, his wise counsel, and his tireless energy were invaluable to me and to the Senate, in my view.

I also, of course, thank Sam Fowler, our general counsel. He was involved at every step in the development and the passage of the legislation. The work product we have finished with out of the Senate is much better for his involvement.

In addition, I thank Allyson Anderson, who worked on the carbon sequestration title and geothermal issues; Angela Becker-Dippmann, who kept track of the 350 or more amendments that were filed on the bill; Patty Beneke, who worked hard on the oil and gas leasing and public lands issues; Tara Billingsley, who worked on the biofuels title; Michael Carr, who worked on coal and transportation issues; Deborah Estes, who worked on the efficiency title; Leon Lowery, who labored mightily on the renewable energy standard or electricity standard; Jonathan Epstein, who worked on the science issues; Scott Miller, who helped on biomass and tax issues; and Cathy Koch of my personal staff and the staff director of the finance subcommittee on energy taxes, who played such a large role in crafting the tax amendment.

I also thank the rest of the professional staff of the committee, who pitched in to help when called upon: David Brooks, Paul Augustine, Jonathan Black, Mike Connor, David Marks, Jorge Silva-Banuelos, Al Stayman, and Bill Wicker; our support staff: Mia Bennett, Amanda Kelly, Rachel Pasternak, Britini Rillera, and Gina Weinstock.

Also, we have four excellent interns working with the committee this year: Kristen Meierhoff, Ben Robinson, Jodi Sweitzer, and Matt Zedler.

I also express appreciation for the work of the minority staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and specifically: Frank Macchiarola, who is the Republican staff director; Judy Pensabene, who is the Republican chief counsel; Kathryn Clay and Kellie Donnelly.

I commend the Senate Finance staff who worked so tirelessly to craft a tax package that would have been an invaluable complement to the authorizing legislation. Senate Finance staff on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle worked in concert to forge a bipartisan package and did that under the direction of Senators Baucus and Grassley. I acknowledge their excellent efforts. The staff includes Pat Bousliman, Ryan Abramam, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Elizabeth Paris, Pat Heck, Mark Prater, John Angell, Bill Dauster, and Russ Sullivan, of course, the staff director.

I also thank Tom Barthold and the entire staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, who helped us greatly, particularly with the tax package that was offered as an add-on to this bill.

Finally, I express my gratitude to the majority leader's staff. I have expressed my gratitude to the majority leader many times for his leadership in getting this bill to the floor and getting it passed through the Senate, but let me also thank the majority leader's staff and very able floor staff: Marty Paone, of course, the secretary for the majority; Lula Davis, the assistant secretary; Chris Miller, the majority leader's senior policy adviser; and all the other members of the staff, on both sides of the aisle, who worked very hard to see this happen.

To each of them, I extend my heartfelt thanks.

Shakespeare lamented how ``oft good turns Are shuffled off with such uncurrent pay.'' I think if he were speaking today, he would probably say: Are shuffled off with such inadequate pay as a simple thank you.

So uncurrent or inadequate though it may be, our thanks is owed to all of the many staff members on our committees and in our personal offices whose hard work and professional assistance have made this legislative accomplishment possible. I am very grateful to each of them and wanted to acknowledge their contribution today.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I want to publicly state what I have stated several times in the last few days, and that is my appreciation to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their leadership in putting this tax package together that has been reported favorably by the Finance Committee on which I am privileged to serve.

Let me speak, briefly, about the Kyl amendment and then talk about the tax package more generally and why we should vote to invoke cloture on this tax package and proceed.

On the Kyl amendment, my first concern is the obvious one: that adoption of the Kyl amendment would be totally irresponsible as a fiscal matter. The Kyl amendment says ``notwithstanding any other provision of the subtitle,'' the subtitle being those provisions that raise revenue to pay for this. We are in a pay-go situation in the Senate under our budgetary arrangements, so if we are going to provide tax credits and tax benefits to some parts of the economy, we need to pay for that. We need to find some way to obtain the revenue. The way the committee has found is to reduce the tax benefits that some other parts of the economy are enjoying today.

So Senator Kyl's amendment says ``notwithstanding the provisions of''--the provisions in the tax package that raise revenue--none of this shall ``take effect unless the Secretary of Energy'' positively decides, that is, ``certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy.''

So, essentially, we are saying it is up to the Secretary of Energy whether we pay for this set of tax provisions. I do not think it is responsible for this Congress to take that position. I mean it is great, and I know everybody likes to be able to go home and say: I didn't oppose the production tax credit extension which is in the bill, I didn't oppose the investment tax credit for solar energy which is in the bill, I didn't oppose the provisions that would incentivize more biofuels production; all I opposed was the idea that we should pay for them. I don't think that is a responsible position for us to take.

On the general tax package and the cloture issue, let me say, the arguments I have heard are three. Some have argued this is going to reduce production; some have argued it is going to increase the price of gas; some have argued this is going to hurt the energy companies. Let me address each of those points briefly.

On reducing production, I don't think this is going to reduce domestic production of oil and gas. I think Senator Baucus made the point very clearly that the two big items that are being used to pay for this tax package are this section 199 provision, which was not even in the law until 2004. We are taking that away as it applies to certain large companies.

Then, of course, the severance tax provision. Let me talk a minute about that. I wasn't here last evening when Senator Bunning was speaking, but I noticed he referred to it as Senator Bingaman's ``scheme'' in his comments last night. The severance tax proposal is not that; it is a 13-percent tax which would apply prospectively; there is nothing retrospective about it. It is prospective. It applies to all production of oil and gas that occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Gulf of Mexico. It is designed so it will not be unduly burdensome on any company that is producing in the Gulf of Mexico. I think we have done a good job in accomplishing that. It does not abrogate contracts. It is a forward-looking tax provision which I think is eminently reasonable.

It would raise some revenue that is sorely needed if we are going to extend these tax provisions, including the production tax credit, the investment tax credit, and the other provisions that are in this bill. I feel very strongly that we should keep it in place, and it is an appropriate way for this Congress to proceed.

The second argument we heard was if we adopt this, we are going to see an increase in the price of gas. The truth is we all know the price of oil is determined on the world market. Our producers produce something like 5 percent of the oil that goes into the world market. So the idea that for us to raise some revenue here is going to affect the price of gas at the pump is not true. If the world price of oil goes up, we wind up paying more at the pump; if the world price of oil goes down, we wind up paying less at the pump. I think American consumers have watched that occur year after year and they understand that is the circumstance.

The other argument is this is going to hurt our energy companies, that this is an undue burden on them. When you look at the reality, the reported profits of the top five integrated oil and gas producers last year were over $111 billion. I don't begrudge them that, but that is 1 year, and that is 5 companies. If profits continue at somewhere in that range, we can reasonably expect very conservatively that producers-- large producers of oil and gas--will have over the next 10 years over $1 trillion in profits.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I thank the Senator from Montana.

So we have $1 trillion of profits over the next 10 years. This package calls for raising $27 billion over the next 10 years. So that is something in the range of 2.5 percent of profits, a much smaller percentage of revenues, of total revenues. So I point out that is not an undue burden on

anyone, and I think all of these screams that this is the end of the world for the oil and gas industry are not founded on any kind of basis in fact.

I think the whole purpose here is to do some very good things in the Tax Code, which I compliment the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa for proposing, and to do so by--under our pay-go rules, find revenue where it will reduce production at the very least, and I think they have done an excellent job in accomplishing that.

I urge my colleagues to support the tax package and vote for cloture on the tax package when it comes up for a vote following the Kyl amendment, and obviously I urge all Members to oppose the Kyl amendment.

I am happy to work with my colleague from Arkansas to improve this bill, and will work with her on this issue following the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, through the President, if he is in agreement with me on a matter of some importance. I offered an amendment last week to require that 15 percent of the electricity sold in the Nation come from renewable energy resources by the year 2020. We have not been able to get an agreement to have a vote on this amendment, or on other forms of it that might have provided more flexibility to States in meeting the goals of the amendment. We would have been agreeable to accepting a supermajority threshold for passage of the amendment. We still could not reach agreement. That implies, to me, that opponents of the measure believe that 60 or more Senators support the amendment. I believe that they may be correct in assuming so.

This amendment would have been as significant an amendment as we could have added to the bill. Such a standard would increase the generation of renewables in the Nation from something over 2 percent to a much greater share of our generation supply. We have tried again and again to provide, in law, mechanisms to allow renewable energy technologies to take the place in the market that they deserve. The Senate has passed similar amendments three times. This provision would result in cleaner electricity generation, be the source of extensive creation of new jobs, enhance our energy security, lower the price of natural gas, and could even result in lower electricity prices.

Given the importance of this provision of the Nation, and the clear, strong support for it in the Senate, I would ask if it is the intention of the majority leader, should we conclude business on the Energy Bill without passing it, to seek another vehicle for the passage of the renewable electricity standard?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en bloc the list of cleared amendments at the desk that have been approved by Senator Domenici and his staff and myself and my staff, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that Mark Wenzel, a fellow in Senator Dodd's office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 6.

Mr. President, the DeMint amendment as described by Senator DeMint creates a 60-vote point of order in the Senate on any legislation or part of legislation that would ``result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles.''

By legislation, that is usually interpreted to mean a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment, a motion, or a conference report. The determination of whether any of those enumerated items would result in an increase in the national average fuel price for automobiles would be made by CBO in consultation with the Energy Information Administration.

This is another piece of ``feel good'' legislation that would have the probable effect of making a great deal of what we do here in the Senate subject to a 60-vote point of order. Frankly, world oil prices and domestic fuel prices are swayed by all sorts of influences and psychological factors in the market. To think the Congressional Budget Office would be able to analyze price effects of legislative proposals might play in this complex stew of what traders and producers and major refiners think will happen is not realistic. This point of order would give a tremendous amount of influence to the petroleum industry. Most anything we do up here causes them to complain we are likely to raise gasoline prices as a result.

For example, they are saying that right now about the antimanipulation and consumer protection provisions in the bill that were voted out of the Commerce Committee. If there were a 60-vote point of order their complaint could trigger, they would certainly be in constant contact with Member offices and with the Congressional Budget Office trying to boost the minimum votes necessary for these proposals to 60 votes.

Let me give you a few examples of amendments to the bill Members want to offer that might be caught up in this kind of a point of order. Senator Cochran has an amendment he wants to offer to increase the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Any purchase of oil for the SPR would take that oil off the market and potentially raise fuel prices. That would trigger the DeMint point of order.

Another example is the provision in the amendment that was adopted in the Senate by over 60 votes yesterday that is referred to generally as NOPEC, which essentially says U.S. courts will be open and available and have jurisdiction to consider antitrust claims against foreign governments that are getting together and trying to conspire to set oil policies. That legislation could clearly affect the price of oil and thereby the price of gasoline at the pump. We have an interest in creating reserves of products for refined gasoline. We already have a heating oil reserve. Legislation to establish new product reserves or to increase the size of the heating oil reserve would likely trigger this point of order my friend is suggesting we ought to put into our procedural law.

Our military posture in the Persian Gulf has a great deal to do with the world price of oil. We might find that amendments or other legislative proposals dealing with sensitive military or diplomatic issues in that region would have an effect on automobile fuel prices under this amendment and could thus trigger the point of order. We might see the whole Defense bill annually subjected to the DeMint point of order on the claim that what we are proposing to do in the Defense bill could increase the price of gasoline at the pump.

It is worth focusing on the fact that the point of order is triggered by ``an increase'' found by the Congressional Budget Office. That increase could be less than a penny a gallon and still the 60-vote point of order would be triggered as the amendment is drawn.

Another example would be any legislation that might be considered on the Senate floor related to Nigeria and our relations with Nigeria. Clearly, we are heavily dependent upon oil from Nigeria to meet our energy needs. Any instability in that relationship could affect the price of oil or the price of gasoline as a result of increases in the price of oil.

People are always complaining it is hard to get things done here in the Congress. We have too many procedural wrangles here in the Congress. There is an abundance already of procedural hurdles that any legislative proposal has to surmount in order to get passed.

We have been pleading with various Senate Members in connection with this exact bill to try to get permission to bring up different amendments, even agreeing that we would be bound by a 60-vote point of order or a 60-vote requirement to do that. So we already have procedural hurdles in place in abundance. We should not be inserting into Senate procedures a requirement that will come back to haunt both Republicans and Democrats in completely unforeseen and unforeseeable ways just in order to say we did something about high gas prices.

I strongly urge that we not agree to the DeMint amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, part of our debate has involved the question of whether we have too many procedural hurdles already impeding the work of the Senate and keeping us from conducting up-or- down votes on things. I strongly believe we do have too many procedural hurdles. Obviously, the purpose of the DeMint amendment would be to put more procedural hurdles in place so that a 60-vote point of order would be required in many circumstances in the future where it is not required today for the Senate to act.

I am informed that one of the procedural hurdles already in law is under the Budget Act and that the pending amendment deals with matter within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction in that the DeMint amendment would direct CBO to take a variety of actions. That is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Hampshire has an amendment he wishes to offer at this time. He has agreed to a time limit wherein we would have 40 minutes equally divided, half to be controlled by Senator Gregg, the other half to be controlled by Senator Grassley, or their designees. It would be 40 minutes prior to any vote in relation to the amendment.

We will have 40 minutes of debate and then at some point we will have a vote. We may not have it immediately at the end of that 40 minutes.

I am suggesting we go ahead and vote at the end of 40 minutes. So we will have 40 minutes of debate equally divided and then we will have a vote.

Mr. President, Senator Domenici and I have been working to get some amendments cleared. There are four that are now cleared.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be considered and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc: Bingaman-Domenici No. 1528; Bingaman-Domenici No. 1529; Menendez No. 1533; and Cantwell No. 1551, as modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I believe the order now is for the Senator from New York who wishes to offer an amendment. I yield to my colleague to see if he is in agreement with that course of action.

Mr. President, I think the better course is for the Senator from New York to go ahead and explain the amendment, offer the amendment. Then during the course of his debate, we will see how persuaded we are and whether a voice vote is adequate or whether a rollcall vote is required.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. He has persuaded me of the merit of his

amendment, but I am not in a position to procedurally move to actual disposition of the amendment at this time.

So if the Senator has completed his statement, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, since we seem to be unable to move ahead and actually dispose of amendments for a few minutes, while we get the procedural circumstance untangled, let me speak briefly about the tax package that has been reported from the Finance Committee.

The energy tax package that is now a pending amendment to this bill represents a dramatic shift in the direction of our national energy policy from fossil fuel dependence to one that promotes diversified domestic sources of clean energy.

The package the Senate will consider as part of this tax package contains three times the incentives for energy efficiency and renewables and other clean energy than we were able to enact in the 2005 Energy bill--three times more clean energy.

The energy tax provisions are intended to complement and augment the authorizing legislation. These vitally important energy measures include:

First, a 5-year extension of the section 45 tax credit for producing electricity from wind, geothermal, biomass, and other green resources; an extension of the section 48 investment tax credit for business investments in solar, fuel cells, and microturbines for a total of 8 years in the package that has now been reported to the Senate; extending the newly proposed residential wind credit; extending several residential and commercial energy efficiency tax incentives; expanding the section 48 A and B investment tax credits to fund the development of clean coal facilities, with a particular requirement that CO2 be captured and sequestered; expanding the program for clean renewable energy bonds by up to $3.6 billion; adding $3 billion to a newly established program for clean coal bonds; extending the advanced vehicle consumer credits and adding a category for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles; and an important new incentive to encourage the production of cellulosic ethanol.

These are important provisions individually, but combined I think they will play a major role in moving our country along toward a path of forward-looking energy policy.

The Finance Committee amendment also contains a severance tax on all oil and gas production from the Federal Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. This severance tax proposal needs to be viewed in the context of the larger energy tax title in the Energy bill that is before the Senate. By including this OCS severance tax in the Energy tax bill, we are able to secure the revenue that is vitally needed for these energy measures I have detailed.

This OCS severance tax has been carefully crafted to raise revenues while doing the least possible to discourage production. First of all, it applies to oil and gas production on the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico only. We carefully considered where the tax should apply. The Alaska OCS is an important frontier area, and additional costs on those operations could truly impact leasing and development activity. The only other area with production in the OCS is California, where production is minimal and no new leasing is occurring.

However, the industry in the Gulf of Mexico is robust--particularly with the price of oil where it is today--and the lessees and operators there tend to be large: either the major oil companies or large independent producers. This is in contrast to the Rocky Mountain region, where many small independents operate. Additional taxes or fees in that region could make the difference between production occurring or not occurring. Thus, this tax would only apply to oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf.

In addition, the tax is designed to ensure that it is not overly burdensome. The tax would be levied at a rate of 13 percent of the value of production with a credit against the tax for royalties paid on each lease. The Government Accountability Office recently completed a study comparing the combined tax and royalty costs imposed on the oil and gas industry in the United States versus elsewhere in the world.

I note the GAO found the climate for doing business in the U.S. is very favorable, with the U.S. having one of the lowest combined ``government takes'' in the world. Using this construct of considering the combined tax and royalty costs, we designed the severance tax with a credit for royalties paid to ensure no lessee would be required to pay more than 13 percent of the value of their production in combined severance taxes and royalties.

Of course, any lessee who is paying a 16\2/3\-percent royalty--that the President has now established as the appropriate royalty on Federal leases going forward--any lessee that is subject to that royalty will pay no tax. Any lessee paying a 12.5-percent royalty will pay an effective rate of 0.5 percent for the severance tax, and lessees paying less than a 12.5-percent royalty rate will pay the tax at an effective rate of the difference between the 13 percent and the royalty rate being paid.

Furthermore, I believe the 13-percent tax rate is extremely reasonable. Earlier this year, the White House did announce the royalty rate for all new leases in the Gulf of Mexico would contain terms requiring that royalties be paid at a rate of 16\2/3\ percent. This was met with little, if any, opposition from the industry.

Again, I commend Senators Grassley and Baucus. Senator Baucus has been our leader on this issue from the beginning of putting this entire package together. He and his staff have done yeoman's work. I also have been proud of the work my staff has done on this important issue as well.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me respond to the comments the Senator from Louisiana made.

Procedurally, we are not able to bring up or consider the amendment he has talked about today. I have explained to him the reason for that is there is a Republican objection to us bringing up and considering a great many amendments that Democratic Members would like to bring up and consider at the same time. So I regret that.

On the substance, I am not in a position to indicate right now whether this kind of change would take place. I would assume that to make that judgment, we would have to know something about the hurricane assistance that has been provided and whether there are still adequate funds available for some of this wetland assistance that was the purpose of the original legislation in 2005.

Obviously, I think the entire Senate has been anxious to be of assistance to all of the gulf coast. This legislation he is referring to, the wetlands protection part of the 2005 Energy bill, was part of that. There have been several things that have been done since the devastating hurricanes hit that region. But I do not know enough about the specifics of those assistance programs to pass judgment on the contents of his amendment. I commend him for offering it, but I am not in a position to support it or oppose it.

I object.

Mr. President, let me respond to the majority leader by saying there are a great many good amendments Republican Members would like to offer, there are good amendments Democratic Members would like to offer. We are informed there is objection to us bringing up any of these amendments and getting a vote on them at this time because of objections from a Senator on the Republican side.

For that reason, we are somewhat unable to proceed with any of these legislative matters. I know the time is running toward the vote on cloture--both on the tax package and on the bill itself. I know there is good faith on both sides in wanting to do some more business before those cloture votes occur. But obviously, good faith on the part of many Senators does not ensure we can make progress. We have to have unanimous consent and we cannot get that.

Mr. President, let me respond to the majority leader. I think it is fair to say there is a good-faith effort on the part of both managers to try to move forward with legislation in a way that is fair to both Republicans and Democrats, and allows consideration of amendments on both sides. But we are being blocked by others.

Again, Mr. President, in response, let me say we have tried to get agreement that certain of the amendments that are objectionable to some Members on the Republican side--we would agree that we would be bound by a 60-vote threshold on those amendments. But at least at this point, my understanding is the objection is to any consideration of the amendments, regardless of what the threshold is going to be. We are unable to proceed right now. I hope that changes. I hope we can dispose of some of the very meritorious amendments that both Republican Senators and Democratic Senators wish to offer before we get to cloture.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in response, that is my understanding, that we will have 40 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on or in relation to the amendment, and that vote may take place later in the afternoon.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona, before the debate proceeds, we now have agreements with Senator Inhofe for two votes. One is a vote in relation to amendment No. 1693 and then a vote in relation to amendment No. 1666. I was wondering if the Senator will agree that following the debate on those two amendments, which will take an hour, if the Senator will be able to return to that point and debate his second amendment and then we can have a stack of four votes.

I appreciate the response.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I see no Senators on either side, so I will propound a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed by 10 minutes for Senator Klobuchar, and following that, the pending amendments be set aside so I may offer amendment No. 1693 and that Senator Inhofe can then offer his first- degree amendment No. 1666; that the two amendments be debated concurrently for 1 hour, to be equally divided between Senator Inhofe and myself; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to amendment No. 1693, to be followed by 2 minutes for debate and a vote in relation to amendment No. 1666; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes in relation to the amendments; and that upon the disposition of the Inhofe amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 1800, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement from the Joint Tax Committee which does an estimate of the amount of the new tax package that would go to wind.

The estimate for a 5-year extension of section 45 credit is $10,292 million, and the amount attributed to wind is $7,846, in their estimation. The rest would be used for biomass and geothermal and other energy sources.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

For the information of Senators, we have now an hour equally divided, half of it under the control of Senator Inhofe and half of it under my control. It is for two purposes. It is to debate amendment No. 1693, which I have submitted, and also to debate amendment No. 1666, which Senator Inhofe has submitted.

Why don't I take 5 minutes at this point.

Amendment No. 1693 To Amendment No. 1502

Let me call up amendment No. 1693.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, let me take up to 5 minutes to speak on amendment No. 1693 and then yield to my colleague Senator Boxer 10 minutes for her to speak on that same amendment.

This amendment addresses a number of important environmental issues associated with renewable fuels. It contains four sections. The first section makes an authorization for grants to encourage production of advanced biofuels with the most favorable greenhouse gas emission characteristics.

The second section provides for a study by EPA of potential issues that may arise as a result of increases in the renewable fuels standard. That study will result in two reports to Congress, one in 2010, the other in 2015.

The third part of the amendment allows the EPA to consider groundwater impacts when regulating fuel additives under the Clean Air Act. One of the reasons we had a problem with MTBE as a fuel additive was that we looked at it in a one-dimensional way. This section of our amendment will allow a full look at all relevant impacts of fuel additives going forward.

The final part of the amendment is a provision commonly known as antibacksliding. It basically allows EPA to address air quality issues that might arise as a result of the increased volumes of renewable fuel mandated by the Energy bill. These changes have been developed by Senator Boxer and her staff, and myself and my staff, in a collaborative manner. I thank her and her staff for the good work they did on these provisions.

I also acknowledge the assistance and support we have received on this amendment from the Renewable Fuels Association.

This is a consensus amendment on the part of those with interests in enhancing our energy security through increased use of renewable fuels in an environmentally responsible way.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I will now yield to the Senator from California for her comments on this, and I will yield her up to 10 minutes, and I will then speak in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I would be glad to yield the Senator from Iowa up to 5 minutes to speak in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, let me speak briefly in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma.

First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks a letter I received from the American Coalition for Ethanol, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association.

I would like to briefly hit the high points of this letter and explain why they are so strongly in opposition to Inhofe amendment No. 1666. I will read parts of the letter into the Record so Members will be aware of their position. It says:

As the Senate continues to debate the energy bill . . . we

urge all Senators to vote against the amendment offered by

Senators [Inhofe, Burr, and Dole] when it is brought up for a

vote. We strongly oppose this amendment as it would

effectively gut the RFS and thwart the growth of the domestic

ethanol industry.

It goes on to say:

Senators Inhofe, Burr and Dole are proposing an amendment

to the energy bill that would put in place a stocks-to-use

mechanism that would suppress crop prices and be detrimental

to the American farmer and to domestic renewable fuels.

Stocks-to-use has limited value as an indicator of demand and

expected price. It is an oversimplified way to look at

supply/demand and pricing and does not often provide an

accurate picture of how markets would be impacted.

It goes on with various examples.

The Senator from Iowa pointed out that the price of corn is high today but may not be high indefinitely. It makes the same point here. It says:

Most long-run economic models [from the] (U.S. Department

of Agriculture and Food and Agricultural Policy Research

Institute, and others) project stocks-to-use ratio slightly

under 10 percent for the next several years, with prices in

the $3.00-$3.50 range. Additionally, many economists have

stopped using the stocks-to-use ratio in their econometric

models as a tool to forecast price because of its obvious

limitations.

They go on and on along the same line, pointing out deficiencies in the approach being taken by the Senator from Oklahoma in the amendment.

Let me conclude with their final statement:

Efforts to undermine the continued growth of the U.S.

ethanol industry should not be tolerated. A careful look at

the facts reveals that American farmers have met, can and

will continue to meet our domestic and international

commitments for food and feed while still making a

significant and growing contribution to lessening our

dependence on imported oil with homegrown, American-made

renewable fuels. We strongly urge you to oppose the Inhofe/

Burr/Dole amendment.

It is hard to know how to do better than that letter in pointing out the deficiencies in the amendment. It is clearly an amendment we should oppose.

Exhibit 1

June 20, 2007.

Majority Leader Harry Reid,

U.S. Senate.

Chairman Jeff Bingaman,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

U.S. Senate.

Ranking Member Pete Domenici,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate.

Dear Senators: As the Senate continues to debate the energy

bill, H.R. 6, we urge all Senators to vote against the

amendment offered by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK), Richard

Burr (R-NC), and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) when it is brought up

for a vote. We strongly oppose this amendment as it would

effectively gut the RFS and thwart the growth of the domestic

ethanol industry.

Senators Inhofe, Burr, and Dole are proposing an amendment

to the energy bill that would put in place a stocks-to-use

mechanism that would suppress crop prices and be detrimental

to the American farmer and domestic renewable fuels. Stocks-

to-use has limited value as an indicator of demand and

expected price. It is an oversimplified way to look at

supply/demand and pricing and does not often provide an

accurate picture of how markets would be impacted. For

example, in 2003/04 the stocks-to-use ratio was one of the

lowest in the last 20 years at 9.4 percent, but prices

remained at $2.50 for a season average. Most long-run

economic models (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and

Agriculture Policy Research Institute, and others) project

stocks-to-use ratio slightly under 10 percent for next

several years, with prices in the $3.00-3.50 range.

Additionally, many economists have stopped using the stocks-

to-use ratio in their econometric models as a tool to

forecast price because of its obvious limitations. As corn

usage are likely to increase substantially to 13, 14, or even

15 billion bushels in the future, a 10 percent stocks-to-use

ratio could very well equate to carry-out of 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5

billion bushels. So while the stocks-to-use ratio might seem

low in these cases, actual carry-out levels would be right in

line with the l2-year average (95/96 to 06/07) of 1.38

billion bushels.

According a recent analysis from the University of

Illinois, ``the stocks-to-use ratio is generally used as a

`short cut' approximation for summarizing annual supply and

demand conditions. However, very different supply and demand

conditions in individual years can lead to similar ratios of

stocks-to-use, but very different prices. The most obvious

example is the contrast between a year of very small

production that results in a low stocks-to-use ratio, but

also requires very high prices to force a reduction in

consumption and a large crop year that results in a high

level of consumption, a low stocks-to-use ratio, but low

prices.''

Without the strong domestic market corn farmers won't have

the incentive to plant as many acres and take the risk that

large production will drive down corn prices. An arbitrary

stocks-to-use ratio trigger that restricts corn use for

ethanol would likely diminish overall demand and put downward

pressure on the price for corn. This would serve as a

disincentive to farmers and discourage them from planting

more corn at a time when more corn is what the feed and fuel

industries need. The food and feed industries have assumed

that farmers will continue to produce record crops regardless

of prices and profitability. If production declines, or even

grows more slowly, stocks could also fall, eventually driving

prices higher. In the long-term, America's farm sector is

better off maintaining a strong and growing domestic demand

base and adding value markets.

The corn industry will continue to strive to satisfy a

variety of important demands and maximize the utility of its

product. Seed technology developments, increasing

agricultural efficiency, innovation in biofuels production

processes and other breakthroughs will ensure that growers

will continue to meet the world's need for food, feed, fuel,

and other uses.

Efforts to undermine the continued growth of the U.S.

ethanol industry should not be tolerated. A careful look at

the facts reveals that American farmers have met, can and

will continue to meet our domestic and international

commitments for food and feed

while still making a significant and growing contribution to

lessening our dependence on imported oil with homegrown,

American-made renewable fuels. We strongly urge you to oppose

the Inhofe/Burr/Dole amendment.

Sincerely,

American Coalition for Ethanol, American Farm Bureau

Federation, National Association of Wheat Growers,

National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers

Union, National Sorghum Producers, Renewable Fuels

Association.

I see the Senator from South Dakota here. I yield him 4 minutes to speak in opposition.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me once again ask how much time remains.

Mr. President, in light of that, since there is 12 minutes still remaining for the Senator from Oklahoma--I do not know how much of that time he wants to use. Once he has used his time, I was going to take a couple minutes to sum up my position in favor of the first amendment that is being offered and we are voting on, and then I would yield that time. But I defer to the Senator from Oklahoma to make any statement he has.

Mr. President, let me sum up my argument in favor of the first amendment we are going to be voting on in this sequence of three amendments; that is, amendment No. 1693 that I have cosponsored with Senator Boxer.

The amendment does address a number of important environmental issues associated with renewable fuels. It is an amendment that contains four sections.

The first makes an authorization for grants to encourage production of advanced biofuels with the most favorable greenhouse gas characteristics.

Second, we have a study by the EPA of potential issues that may arise as a result of increases in the renewable fuels standards. That study will result in two reports to Congress, both in 2010 and 2015.

The third part allows the EPA to consider groundwater impacts when regulating fuel additives under the Clean Air Act, which is a good provision.

The final part is a provision commonly known as an anti-backsliding provision, basically allowing EPA to address air quality issues that might arise as a result of the increased volumes of renewable fuel mandated in this Energy bill.

Mr. President, let me at this time conclude my remarks and ask the Senator from California if she wishes to make any concluding remarks.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add to amendment No. 1693 Senators Dodd, Cardin, and Sanders as cosponsors, to the amendment we are about to vote on.

Mr. President, I believe Senator Gregg would be a cosponsor to amendment No. 1666?

Mr. President, at this point I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1693.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 2 hours 10 minutes for debate prior to a vote in relation to the Kyl second-degree amendment to the Baucus amendment No. 1704, and the cloture vote on the Baucus amendment;

with the time divided as follows: 60 minutes to be used during today's session, and 70 minutes available for debate when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 6 on Thursday, June 21; with all time equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and Kyl or their designees; with the Republican time being controlled 15 minutes by Senator Kyl and 20 minutes by Senator Domenici; that no other amendment be in order prior to disposition of the Kyl amendment; with 30 minutes of the time on Thursday available for debate with respect to the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment No. 1704; and then, upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment; that upon disposition of the Kyl amendment, the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus amendment No. 1704.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will examine the growing aviation industry practice of outsourcing maintenance, repair, and overhaul MRO work.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection[ it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask, unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on health, education, labor and pensions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-628. We will be considering the following:

Agenda

1. The Higher Education Access Reconciliation Act (not yet introduced)

2. Amendments to the Higher Education Access Reconciliation Act

3. The following nominations: Jerome F. Kever, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Railroad Retirement Board; Michael Schwartz, of Illinois, to be a Member of the Railroad Retirement Board; Virgil M. Speakman Jr., of Ohio, to be a Member of the Railroad Retirement Board; Marylyn Andrea Howe, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the National Council on Disability; Lonnie C. Moore, of Kansas, to be a Member of the National Council on Disability; and Kerri Layne Briggs, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary

for Elementary and Secondary Education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Rising Violent Crime in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina'' on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, United States Senator [D-LA] and The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senator [R-LA].

Panel II: The Honorable James B. Letten, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA; The Honorable David L. Bell, Chief Judge, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, New Orleans, LA; Anthony Cannatella, Deputy Chief, Operations Bureau, New Orleans Police Department, New Orleans, LA; and Robert A. Stellingworth, President & CEO, New Orleans Police and Justice Foundation, New Orleans, LA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will be on ``Judicial Nominations.''

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senator [R-OK]; The Honorable Elizabeth Dole, United States Senator [R-NC]; and The Honorable Richard Burr, United States Senator [R-NC].

Panel II: William Lindsay Osteen, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Martin Karl Reidinger to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; Timothy D. DeGiusti to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma; and Janis Lynn Sammartino to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing in relation to S. 1285, the ``Fair Elections Now Act.'' Topics covered will be: reforming the finance of Senate elections and the high cost of broadcasting campaign advertisements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 20, 2007, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Reauthorization of the Hope VI Program.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing entitled, ``EPA's Response to 9-11 and Lessons Learned for Future Emergency Preparedness.''