Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I note the passing away of Dr. Art Guenther on April 21, 2007.

Art Guenther was born April 18, 1931, in Hoboken, NJ. As a kid he loved the outdoors and became New Jersey's youngest Eagle Scout. He wanted to be a forest ranger and hoped to attend a college with a good forestry program, but those schools didn't accept out-of-state students. A teacher had noticed Guenther's aptitude in math and science and got him into Rutgers. There he majored in chemistry, earning his bachelor's degree in 1953.

As a grad student at Penn State, he wanted to pursue optics. His thesis advisor asked, ``Why optics? The cream is gone,'' meaning all the good research had been done. Guenther persisted, receiving his Ph.D. in chemistry and physics in 1957. He joined the Air Force and was sent to Kirtland Air Force Base. His mother wondered why they were sending him out of the country on his first assignment. After serving 2 years, he left the Air Force and became a civilian employee and a New Mexican for the remainder of his life. His optics work would pay off in 1960, after the laser was first demonstrated. As the only person at Kirtland with a background in optics, Guenther was asked by the commander of the research directorate to evaluate lasers for potential Air Force use. He toured the country and reported back on the promise of the new technology. At the request of the Air Force, he established a laser program and later became chief scientist of the Air Force Weapons Lab, a

position he held for 15 of his 31 years with the Air Force.

By 1965 Guenther had become one of the world's leading experts in simulating effects of atomic explosions. He also gained experience in advanced optical systems, high-power lasers, high-power microwaves, pulsed power, materials science, and weapons effects. Guenther is considered a pioneer in the development of pulsed-power technology and its defense applications. Dr. Guenther stood out as not only a scientist but someone who was deeply concerned about bettering the lives of New Mexicans by promoting the spread of science outside the laboratory gates through education and high technology economic development. Art Guenther helped develop an optics curriculum at Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute. The program was so successful it had a waiting list.

In the 1980s, Guenther was one of the first to see a high-tech future for New Mexico. Gov. Bruce King in 1981 established the Governor's Technical Excellence Committee, GTEC, with Guenther as a member. King asked GTEC to assess the State's high-tech assets; they found 15,000 Ph.D.s, major research universities and three Federal laboratories along the Rio Grande.

At a time when other States had their Silicon Valley or Research Triangle, it was Guenther who coined the term ``Rio Grande Research Corridor.'' He chaired the State Science and Technology Committee, which proposed and got the five Centers of Technical Excellence in 1983. One of those was the Center for High-Tech Materials at UNM.

In 1988, Guenther became chief scientist for advanced defense technology at Los Alamos National Laboratory. In that post, he was science adviser to Gov. Garrey Carruthers and again for Gov. Bruce King. In 1991 he became scientific adviser for laboratory development and manager of alliances at Sandia.

Guenther retired in 1998, but his family and colleagues know he didn't really retire. He became a research professor at UNM's Center for High-Tech Materials and was also on contract with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. He maintained a staggering schedule of travel, meetings, research and civic involvement. Also in 1998, after identifying a wealth of optics activity in the State, he became co- founder of the New Mexico Optics Industry Association. And through NMOIA, he was instrumental in founding the Photonics Academy at West Mesa High School. He also helped organize the Directed Energy Professionals Society.

Art received numerous honors and awards. Some of these awards include the Distinguished Executive Rank Award from President Reagan, the Harry Diamond Award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the Director's Award of the International Society of Optical Engineering, the David Richardson Medal of the Optical Society of America, and the Arthur L. Schawlow Medal from the Laser Institute of America in 1983. He has twice received the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award. In 1992 he was one of the first Americans to be named to the Russian Academy of Sciences. He had worked with Russian scientists since the 1960s and was credited with improving communication between the two countries.

Guenther brought so many technical meetings to Albuquerque that he earned a special award from the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau. On April 25, the New Mexico Optics Industry Association honored him with the organization's first Lifetime Service Award.

Mr. President, my State was blessed by Art Guenther's energy and dedication and we will miss him.

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 May 15, 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. 553, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 800, to establish the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in the State of New York; S. 916, to modify the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument, to establish the Minidoka National Historic Site, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land and improvements of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project, Idaho; S. 1057, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the New River in the States of North Carolina and Virginia as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1209, to provide for the continued administration of Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, in accordance with the laws (including regulations) and policies of the National Park Service; S. 1281, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain rivers and streams of the headwaters of the Snake River System as additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System; H.R. 161, to adjust the boundary of the Minidoka Internment National Monument to include the Nidoto Nai Yoni Memorial in Bainbridge Island, Washington; H.R. 247, to designate a Forest Service trail at Waldo Lake in the Willamette National Forest in the State of Oregon as a national recreation trail in honor of Jim Weaver, a former Member of the House of Representatives; and H.R. 376, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefields and related sites of the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, during the Civil War as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating the battlefields and related sites as a separate unit of the National Park System.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the tragic deaths of women and girls in Guatemala, and to submit a resolution urging increased U.S. involvement in addressing this serious issue.

Since 2001, more than 2,000 women and girls have been murdered in Guatemala. The murder rate of these women almost doubled from 2001 to 2006, increasing at a higher rate than the murder rate of men. While these killings may be due to a variety of factors, what clearly unifies these cases is the fact that very few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. Indeed, it is my understanding that as of 2006 there have been only 20 convictions for these killings. In some of the cases police have been implicated in the crimes.

The lack of respect for the rule of law, inadequate legal protections for women, ongoing violence in the country, corruption, insufficient resources, substandard investigations, and the lack of independent and effective judicial and prosecutorial systems, all contribute to the inability of the Government of Guatemala to hold those responsible for these killings accountable for their crimes. The result is a general sense of impunity for crimes against women in the country.

The Government of Guatemala has taken some steps to address these killings. Guatemala has created special police and prosecutorial units to investigate these murders, and repealed the so called ``Rape Law'' which had absolved perpetrators of criminal responsibility for rape upon the perpetrator's marriage with the victim. The Government also recently entered into an agreement with the United Nations to establish the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, CICIG, which has a mandate to investigate and prosecute illegal security groups operating with impunity. And Guatemala established the National Institute for Forensic Sciences to improve investigatory and evidence gathering efforts.

The resolution I am submitting today is aimed at raising awareness of this issue and encouraging the governments of Guatemala and the United States to work together to stop these killings. Among other things, the resolution: condemns these murders and expresses the sympathy of the Senate to the families of women and girls murdered in Guatemala; encourages the Government of Guatemala to act with due diligence in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for these crimes; urges the Government of Guatemala to recognize domestic violence as a criminal act and to provide adequate resources necessary to strengthen the integrity of the prosecutorial and judicial systems; urges the President and the Secretary of State to incorporate this issue into the bilateral agenda between the governments of Guatemala and the United States; and encourages the Secretary of State to provide assistance in training and

equipping special police units to investigate these crimes, implementing judicial reforms and rule of law programs, establishing a missing persons system, creating an effective witness protection program, and supporting efforts to enhance forensic capabilities.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution and give this issue the attention it deserves.

Mr. President, on March 9, 2007, the Administration transmitted draft legislation entitled the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On behalf of Senator Akaka, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and myself, I am pleased today to introduce the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act, by request, as a courtesy to the Administration.

Both Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar have made clear that the National Park Centennial Initiative is one of the highest priorities of the Department of the Interior. The initiative proposes up to $3 billion in new funds over the next decade, with three components.

The first component of the initiative is the ``President's Centennial Commitment,'' under which the Administration is proposing an additional $100 million per year in new discretionary funds for the National Park Service. The second and third components, which the Administration collectively describes as the ``President's Centennial Challenge,'' would seek to raise up to $100 million each year over a ten-year period from private donations. All donations would be matched with new Federal funding, up to $100 million annually.

The new funding would be used for ``signature projects and programs,'' which the draft legislation defines as ``a project or program identified by the Director of the National Park Service as one that will help prepare the national parks for another century of conservation, preservation, and enjoyment.''

Mr. President, while I commend the Administration for this effort to secure increased funding for our national parks, I still need to better understand many of the specifics of the proposal, and until then, am reserving judgment on it.

For example, we need to understand whether the initiative will result in significant new funding for our national parks, or whether increases in funding from the initiative will simply be offset by funding reductions in other important areas. I also have questions

about whether the philanthropic goals proposed by this legislation are realistic, given the historic levels of private contributions for national parks. In addition, we need to learn more about the type of projects and programs that would be funded under the initiative, and what role Congress should have in establishing funding priorities. Finally, any legislative initiative that proposes $1 billion in new direct spending without an offset will certainly be carefully reviewed.

Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar have indicated that they intend to make recommendations to the President later this month on appropriate signature projects and programs as well as goals for the initiative. I look forward to working with both Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar on this proposal once those recommendations are complete.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with the transmittal letter from Director Bomar and a section-by-section analysis of the bill prepared by the Department of the Interior.

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, May 10, 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 Joseph Timothy Kelliher, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and R. Lyle Laverty, of Colorado, to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior.

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

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mr. President, obviously, I have great respect for my colleague from New Hampshire, and particularly because he is, I believe, the only trained engineer in the Senate, I certainly pay attention when he speaks on issues related to engineering and science, and I think we all need to do that. But I think he is clearly wrong in this circumstance, and let me explain why.

The Senator is offering an amendment to strike the provisions of this bill that provide for annual funding increases for education and human resource programs at the National Science Foundation. The purpose of the provision that is in the bill he wants to strike is to ensure the continued involvement of experts at the National Science Foundation in improving science, technology, engineering, and math education at the elementary, secondary, and the postsecondary level.

This underlying bill, S. 761, provides for substantial increases in funding for the National Science Foundation, and the amount of those increases is contained in section 401. You can see for the next 4 years there are substantial increases. I would reiterate, as we have many times in this debate, these are authorizing levels. This is not actual appropriation of money. That is the heavy lifting which we are going to have to do later on this year. This authorizes, however, significant increases in funding for the National Science Foundation.

As appropriations for the National Science Foundation increase under this legislation, under S. 761, funds for the education and human resources programs will also increase by a proportional amount. We are not in any way

diverting funds from basic research or other activities of the National Science Foundation, and we are not specifying that they do things they have not traditionally done. The National Science Foundation has a very impressive record of accomplishment in education at all levels with regard to science, engineering, and mathematics.

The National Science Foundation is the engine of innovation for K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math education. Strengthening science and math education is a core mission of the National Science Foundation. This is not a sideline, this is a core mission. When the agency was founded, Congress recognized the importance of involving scientists in the critical questions relating to science education, and they made science education a key part of the agenda of that agency. The National Science Foundation programs range from graduate fellowships to programs for secondary school teachers, to informal museum programs. They are designed to attract students to science, engineering, technology, and mathematics. They are designed to give them the preparation and the fundamental knowledge they need to pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees, and they are designed to support the completion of those degrees.

The EHR, which is the education and human resources directorate within the National Science Foundation, also pursues ways for advancing participation and equity in access for all who are interested in pursuing careers in these fields. As a research and development institution, the National Science Foundation is uniquely situated to bring insights to science and math education, and that is the reason why we gave them that job.

The National Science Foundation education programs are a catalyst for change in education, and they have been demonstrated to do that. Let me give one example of a successful program, which is NSF's math and science partnership program. An analysis of 123 schools that participated in that program shows improvements in student proficiency in math and science at the elementary, the middle, and high school levels over a 3-year period. This year, the National Science Foundation's budget includes $30 million for these MSP, or math and science partnership, awards.

A recent report by the Academic Competitiveness Council found that of the 10 math and science education programs at various Federal agencies they evaluated, all 4 of the programs they found to be effective were being run out of the National Science Foundation. So the authorization level for education and human resources in this bill reflects what the President asked for in fiscal 2008, plus an adjustment of $300 million to allow for the new programs authorized in the bill.

Let me directly respond to the main points I understood my colleague from New Hampshire to be making. He started by saying no Member of Congress should be telling NSF how to spend their money, basically. We do that every time we pass an appropriations bill. We tell NSF how to spend their money. We also do it whenever we pass an authorization bill. The last time we passed the NSF reauthorization, which I think was 2003, we specified there precisely how much would go into education versus into other types of activities. So this is not in any way a change.

I think everyone in Congress knows the one thing we are good at is micromanaging. We do not give tens of billions of dollars to any agency and say do what you want. We tell them we want this much spent on research and development, and we want this much spent on education.

The one other point my colleague from New Hampshire made is we should not get into interfering with the peer review system, which is designed to ensure the best activities are chosen. We anticipated that problem and agree entirely with him. Section 4007 of this legislation, on page 183, is entitled ``Reaffirmation of the Merit-Review Process of the National Science Foundation,'' and it says:

Nothing in this division or division A, or the amendments

made by this division or division A, shall be interpreted to

require or recommend that the National Science Foundation (1)

alter or modify its merit-review system or peer-review

process; or, (2) exclude the awarding of any proposal by

means of the merit-review or peer-review process.

So there is nothing in the section the Senator would have us strike that in any way undermines the peer review system. That is certainly something I would not support doing.

I believe very strongly this is not a good amendment; that deleting section 4002, which is what the Senator's amendment would do, would be a substantial mistake, and I urge my colleagues to resist the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

How much time remains for the Senator from New Hampshire?

Let me use the remaining 2 minutes in opposition to the Senator from New Hampshire, and then the Senator can obviously use as much time as he would like.

Let me just reiterate that I think this section which he is proposing that we strike is an important section to retain in the legislation. This is something which is a direct outgrowth of what the Augustine Commission recommended. They recommended that we increase funding for the National Science Foundation and that we ensure that the National Science Foundation substantially increase its efforts with regard to science education. That is what this provision does. That is what this section of the bill does. It says we want to increase authorization for the National Science Foundation, and as we are doing that, we want to be sure there is adequate funding, there is adequate attention given to science education.

I believe, if there were a single thing which the National Academy of Sciences report concluded, it is that we are investing way too little as a country in science and engineering and math education across-the- board--in the Department of Education, in the Department of Energy, in the National Science Foundation, in our schools, elementary and secondary and postsecondary and universities.

This is an important provision. We should keep this in the bill. I know it is very important to Senator Kennedy. He was very involved in the discussions that went into the drafting of this portion of the bill. As a member of his committee, I strongly object to us deleting this section of the bill.

I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, let me just get the attention of Senators for a minute. We made good progress on this bill yesterday, and then, of course, we just had a vote this morning. We are anxious to try to complete this bill before this briefing which is scheduled with General Petraeus at 4 o'clock this afternoon, if we possibly can. So we would be very appreciative if Members would come to the floor with any amendments they have and offer those amendments and take a short time to explain them. For any of them it appears we can accept, we are glad to try to accept them. Some we will not be able to accept. But we are anxious to get any additional amendments any Senator wishes to have considered brought to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

I believe both Senator Domenici and Senator Alexander want to say a word, and then I believe Senator Sanders wishes to speak to his amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, today, April 25, at 2 o'clock, the Senate proceed to debate concurrently three Coburn amendments, Nos. 918, 921, and 922; that there be a total of 60 minutes of debate, divided as follows: 40 minutes under the control of Senator Coburn and 20 minutes under the control of myself or my designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each amendment in the order listed in this agreement; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided as specified above prior to the second and third votes; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered

under this agreement prior to the vote; and that the second and third votes in the series be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. President, I am glad to accommodate the Senator from West Virginia. He asked if I would restate the unanimous consent request. I am glad to do that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 25, at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to debate concurrently three Coburn amendments, Nos. 918, 921, and 922; that there be a total of 60 minutes of debate, divided as follows: 40 minutes under the control of Senator Coburn and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Bingaman or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each amendment in the order listed in this agreement; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided as specified above prior to the second and third votes; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior to the vote; and that the second and third votes in this series be 10 minutes in duration.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeMint be recognized to offer amendment No. 930; that there be 20 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator DeMint and myself or our designees; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that at the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be set aside to recur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for coming to the floor and making his argument for this amendment at this time. He is right, under this unanimous consent agreement the plan would be to add it to a package of other amendments we are voting on later this afternoon at a time chosen by the majority leader.

I will speak briefly in opposition to the amendment at this point. I know the Senator from South Carolina has had to leave the floor, but I do think it best in order that anyone who is following our discussions here on the floor can know the problem I have with the amendment.

First, I agree with the concern about Congress stepping in and diverting funds from the good purposes we lay out in this legislation and diverting those to other, more parochial applications. That is a valid concern. I object to that and I hope we can prevent that from happening in the future. But I would argue this amendment is not the way to keep that from happening.

This amendment sets up a unique process. It basically says you cannot bring an appropriations bill to the Senate floor unless you have 60 votes. Any appropriations bill you try to bring to the floor is subject to a 60-vote point of order if it contains in it what is described as a congressional earmark. You say, What is meant by a congressional earmark? It goes on to say that is any provision or report language--if you have a report that accompanies the appropriations bill, that is report language--that provides or authorizes or recommends a specific amount of funding or discretionary authority or credit to an entity.

That is pretty broad. Essentially what we would be saying is the Appropriations Committee, for example, if they determine--one example the Senator from Tennessee and I were talking about today as we were discussing this amendment was, if we said we want $60 million spent for the supercomputing program and the Appropriations Committee said, no, it ought to be $80 million, an extra $20 million for the supercomputing programs in a particular agency of the Federal Government, that is in fact within the definition of ``earmarked Congressional funding here,'' so a 60-vote point of order could be raised against that provision.

I don't think the Congress wants to go to that extreme in tying its own hands. You would have essentially two sets of rules: one set of rules that would apply to most appropriations bills and a different set of rules that would apply to appropriations bills that would cover the subjects that are the subject of this legislation--that would be Health and Human Services, because there is a substantial amount in this legislation that goes to the Department of Education; that would be the Commerce, Science and Justice legislation. Let's see, what is the other--the Energy and Water appropriations bill, of course. Those are appropriations bills that would be subject to this different and more strenuous point of order requirement.

This is well intentioned, I am certain. I have no doubt about the good intentions of the Senator from South Carolina. We have all been concerned about the overuse of earmarks in the Congress in recent years. I know there is a great deal going on to require more transparency, to require that all these things be out in public so we can know what is being voted on and we can object. That is the best shield. He talked about an earmark shield. That is the best shield. It is the eternal vigilance of people here in Congress, paying attention to what is in the bills and insisting only those things are in the bills that in fact further a good public purpose.

So I do object.

I yield the remainder of the time that is reserved in opposition to this amendment. But before I yield the floor, let me do another consent agreement.

Amendments Nos. 931, As Modified; 923, As Modified; 941, and 960

There are four amendments that have been filed that relate to the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. There is a modification at the desk to amendment No. 931 by Senator McCaskill. She spoke to that amendment a few minutes ago. There is a modification at the desk to amendment No. 923 by Senator Obama. There is an amendment No. 941 by Senators Snowe and Kohl. There is an amendment No. 960 by Senators Levin and Voinovich.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments, as modified if modified, be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let me, to alert my colleagues as to the state of activity here at the current time, say what it is, as I understand it.

We have a unanimous consent agreement to consider three amendments Senator Coburn of Oklahoma wishes to offer. That will begin at 2 o'clock this afternoon. We are not certain if we will require a rollcall vote on all three of those amendments or only two of those amendments, but that will be determined in the future.

We also, of course, now have a unanimous consent agreement to have a vote on the DeMint amendment we were discussing. That will be scheduled presumably after we have the votes on the Coburn amendments or in some sequence around that same time.

I am informed we also have an amendment Senator Inhofe wishes to bring to the floor and to discuss and offer, which I hope can be done between now and the 2 o'clock time for beginning the discussion on the Coburn amendments. I see Senator Inhofe is on the floor. If he is agreeable to going ahead with his amendment at this time, he could argue in favor of his amendment, and then I will have some arguments against his amendment, and there may be others also wishing to speak against his amendment, and we could hopefully schedule a vote on that as well.

That is a total of five amendments I am aware of that may require rollcall votes. I hope we can get all of those amendments debated and scheduled for votes and voted on before we have the briefing at 4 o'clock, the briefing by General Petraeus. If we were able to do that, I don't know why we couldn't also go to final passage before 3 o'clock, or if there were a problem in doing that, of course, we could come back after the briefing and have final passage. But I know of no other amendments.

If Senators are sitting in their offices or their staffs are sitting in their offices with other amendments they intend to offer to this legislation, we urge they come to the floor and offer those amendments in the very near future.

I will defer to my colleague from Tennessee for his observations, but as far as I am informed, once we have disposed of these five amendments, we will have disposed of all of the amendments people have insisted on having rollcall votes on.

With that, I yield the floor and I will allow my colleague from Tennessee to speak.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's willingness to consider modifications in the amendment. We are still checking with particular Senators who have expressed an interest in this on our side. It will still be a few minutes before we are in a position to say whether this is still an amendment on which we would require a vote. I hope this is something on which we can agree not to have to have a rollcall vote. Perhaps we will know in the next few minutes.

Amendment No. 905, as Modified

While I have the floor, let me indicate there is an amendment which has been filed which relates to the Energy Committee's jurisdiction. It has been cleared on both sides. It is a modification that is at the desk to amendment No. 905 by Senator Obama. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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 am informed by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, whose jurisdiction this would be under, that the amendment Senator Inhofe has offered, amendment No. 955, as modified, which is now at the desk, is acceptable to both sides at this point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be brought up, agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. President, I will speak briefly on the amendment. I know the Senator has two other amendments he wants to also discuss, and there may be others who want to come back and say something about this amendment.

I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. Under the rules of procedure that we follow in the Senate, an appropriation can be objected to if the underlying activity that the money is being appropriated for has not been authorized. So we try to pass authorizing bills. That is what this legislation is. This is authorizing legislation.

If everything were perfect around this place, then we would always get our authorizing bills reauthorized in time so that there would never be a lapse. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are a lot of authorizing bills that we have allowed to lapse. That does not mean that we quit funding those activities. We, in fact, continue funding those activities through the appropriations process until Congress organizes itself and passes a new reauthorization. But the old reauthorization remains in place until there is something new to replace it or until there is some conscious decision.

These are not new activities, by and large, we are talking about in this legislation. A lot of this is activities that we have done for a long time, and we are trying to, once again, authorize them. We are trying to increase the amounts available for these different activities, whether it is science education, scientific research-- whatever the issue is.

If the amendment of the Senator is adopted, my understanding is that effective on October 1, 2011, there is no authorization at that point from then on for any of this bill. Therefore, any Congress that tries to appropriate the funds, a point of order could be raised that this is trying to appropriate money for an activity for which there has not been an authorization. I think that would be unwise. That is my basic view.

I certainly favor the Congress performing its appropriate job of coming back by the time these authorizations are completed, the various dollar figures we have in this bill, and looking at this again and doing a rewrite of the authorization. That is what we are trying to do with No Child Left Behind right now. I can tell you that before No Child Left Behind was ever enacted, there was a year or 2 years where the Elementary and Secondary Education Act essentially had expired by its language. There was no sunset such as the Senator is recommending here, but the 5-year authorization had expired. Yet we could go ahead because the underlying language still had force and effect.

I also have great questions as to the legal effect of this amendment. Here we say the provisions of the act and the amendments made by the act shall cease to have force and effect on or after October 1, 2011.

Some of the provisions of the act are repeals of other acts or repeals of other provisions. Are we saying that in one bill we would be saying we are repealing this provision, but we are also saying as of October 1, 2011, the repeal no longer has any force and effect and the provision comes back into effect?

I think there are all sorts of confusion that would be sown by trying to adopt this amendment. I oppose it myself. As I say, I think there are others who wish to speak on it before we get to a vote. I know the Senator has two other amendments he wishes to address.

I yield the floor, and yield to my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici.

Mr. President, let me speak, again regretfully, against the Senator's amendment, and I do so first on behalf of Senator Inouye as chairman of the Commerce Committee. This is, of course, within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The provisions of the amendment relate to the Department of Commerce and NOAA, and the statement I have been given by Senator Inouye is pretty straightforward and says the amendment, while possibly based on good intentions, actually causes substantial harm to numerous NOAA programs and activities and missions.

Some of the specifics cited are that the provision requiring that audits be posted on the Web within 60 days does not contain safeguards for proprietary information that may have been gathered as a result of the audit. Also, a concern has been raised about the prohibition in section B on the use of NOAA funds for meetings. The provision in the amendment says:

No funds made available by the administrator through a

grant or contract can be used by the person who received the

grant or the contract to attend any conference other than a

conference related to training or routine meetings of

officers or employees of the administration.

One of the basic activities scientists and engineers engage in is doing their research and then presenting that research at conferences so they can have reaction from their colleagues and their peers and have an interchange about the validity of the work they have done. This would prohibit the use of funds for that purpose, which is one reason it would be objectionable.

The other concern that has been raised is we are setting up a separate procedure here with regard to handling conflict of interest issues at NOAA which would be separate and apart from the general procedures the Federal Government has with regard to grant review processes. The thought is that those general processes should be made to apply and we should not be writing into law, particularly as an amendment to this legislation, some kind of separate provision and requirement with regard to just this one agency within the Department of Commerce

under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

How much time on the side of the Senator from Oklahoma?

Let me go ahead and use the remainder of our time in opposition to the amendments, and then the Senator from Oklahoma can use as much additional time as he would like, obviously.

I agree with the comments the Senator from Michigan has just made about the ATP program. I do think one of our weaknesses historically, particularly in recent decades in this country, is although we have done reasonably well on basic research, we have not done as well in taking that basic research the next step and getting it to a point where it can be commercialized and manufacturing can occur in this country.

I have a chart I was going to show. Let me put up the chart and try to make the point as to where the advanced technology program is in the development cycle, as I understand it. This chart tries to point out the venture capital funds focused on late-stage research.

There are five different categories represented on this chart: seed funding, startup funding, other early stage, expansion, and then later stage.

Regarding venture capital funding, the higher bars on the chart, of course, are in the later stage. The seed funding and the startup funding are the two areas on which the Advanced Technology Program concentrates. It does so in a way which is intended to get the very best results.

These programs are peer-reviewed. There is real competition, rigorous peer-reviewed competition in the allocation of this money. The funds go to those researchers and those technologists who are most likely to be able to take these basic discoveries and turn them into commercial products and commercial services. There are many examples of successes in this area.

Unfortunately, we do not have as many today that we can point to, relative to the rest of the world, as we used to have. The competition, frankly, between ourselves and many of our competitors, is very severe at this point. When you go to a country such as Japan and look at the extent of the Government's support of this kind of technology development, it is extremely impressive. We shy away from that. We say we are not going to help; it is up to our individual companies to do the best they can. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they do poorly. But the Advanced Technology Program helps them to do better. It has been a very good investment.

The Academies of Science did a report looking at this very thing a few

years ago. Their expert panel included top executives from companies such as Intel and Xerox and groups such as Sematech, venture capitalists, also academic researchers. They concluded the following:

The Advanced Technology Program is an effective Federal

partnership program. The selection criteria applied by the

program enabled it to meet broad national needs and to help

ensure that the benefits of successful awards extend across

firms and industries. Its costshared, industry-driven

approach to funding promising new technological opportunities

has shown considerable success in advancing technologies that

can contribute to important societal goals such as improved

health diagnostics, developing tools to exploit the human

genome, and improving the efficiency and competitiveness of

U.S. manufacturing.

This is a program I think deserves the increased levels of support that are contemplated in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to resist the amendment of the Senator to delete funding for the Advanced Technology Program.

Is there still time on my side?

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am happy to respond. I would respond by saying we are not providing funds to particular companies so they can compete effectively. What we are doing is saying there are sectors of U.S. industry which are in very substantial competition with their counterparts worldwide. Whether it is the automobile industry, whether it is the semiconductor industry, whether it is the biologics industry, whatever the area is, we have companies in our country that are competing in those areas, and there is early stage research and seed development--early stage development into which they should be putting significant efforts.

When you look at it from the point of any individual company, it might not make that much sense to say we are going to devote a substantial portion of our research dollars to this because it is long term. It may not pay off in 10 years. It may never pay off. But here we can use some taxpayer dollars to prime the pump, so to speak, and to go to these companies on a cost-shared basis and say: You guys get together. We will help you develop advanced battery technology because otherwise we may eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. But we are going to become dependent on foreign battery cells. That is not good for the U.S. economy as a whole.

If General Motors happens to be one of the participants in that consortium of companies that is working on that advanced battery technology, then so much the better. But I do not consider that corporate welfare. I consider that good, intelligent allocation of our resources in order to keep our industry competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a question.

Here is the information I am given. I would cite this to the Senator and ask if he has a reason to disagree.

Of the single applicant awards under the Advanced Technology Program, 78 percent have gone to small businesses, 11 percent have gone to medium-size businesses and nonprofits, and only 11 percent of solo awards have gone to large businesses. Is that accurate?

That is 21 percent over the last 14 years?

That is contrary to the information I was given. I thank the Senator for yielding for the question.

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 know the Senator from Georgia has an amendment he wishes to speak to and offer and proposes to withdraw. I will yield in a moment for him to do that. But let me ask unanimous consent that following his statement and his action, the votes in relation to the pending amendments occur in the following order: DeMint amendment No. 930, Coburn amendment No. 918, Coburn amendment No. 921, Coburn amendment No. 922, and Kohl amendment No. 942; that no amendment be in order to these amendments prior to the vote or to this final Kohl amendment prior to the vote; that prior to each vote in the sequence listed here, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be 10-minute votes; further, that provisions of previous orders governing these amendments remain in effect.

Mr. President, let me take the lead in opposition to the amendment. This is the amendment that would set up a new 60-vote point of order on any appropriations bill that comes to the floor with anything contained in it that could be designated a congressional earmark. Unfortunately, the definition of congressional earmark set out in the amendment is very broad. It basically says: If you are specifying money going to an entity, either in the language of the appropriations bill or in the report accompanying it, and it relates to items being authorized in this legislation, the objection could be made that you had to have 60 votes. So you would have one set of rules for most appropriations bills and a different set of rules for appropriations bills that would include appropriations relevant to this competitiveness bill. It would be a very bad policy. I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kohl amendment No. 942 be the pending amendment.

I am informed that additional debate on this amendment is not needed and that there is no request for a rollcall vote, so I ask we proceed to a voice vote on this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe we can proceed to the second rollcall vote, which is the Coburn amendment No. 918.

Amendment No. 918

Mr. President, this amendment is one which I think would be bad policy, a bad precedent for us here in the Senate. It basically puts a hard and fast, drop-dead date on any legislation contained in this bill and says there is a sunset provision so that any program authorized here, any kind of activity permitted under this legislation, would be prohibited following that date in 2011. It is not the kind of sunset we would normally adopt on legislation. I don't think it is appropriate here. I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the previously ordered amendments, the only other amendments in order be Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 975, Senator Dorgan's amendment No. 958, and a managers' amendment, which must be cleared by both managers; that after disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read the third time, and the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on final passage of S. 761.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, we have a managers' package of amendments which have been cleared and which are at the desk. Some are in modified form. Let me go through the list and then ask consent for their approval:

Amendment No. 915, as modified, by Senator Grassley; amendment No. 916, as modified, by Senator Grassley; amendment No. 924, as modified, by Senator Obama; amendment No. 926, as modified, by Senator Menendez; amendment No. 944, as modified, by Senator Coleman; amendment No. 950 by Senator Baucus; amendment No. 951

by Senator Baucus; amendment No. 952, as modified, by Senator Baucus; amendment No. 957, as modified, by Senator Hatch; amendment No. 958 by Senator Dorgan; amendment No. 965, as modified, by Senator Murray; amendment No. 970, as modified, by Senator Feingold; amendment No. 975 by Senator Landrieu; amendment No. 977 by Senator Murray; and amendment No. 980 by Senators Alexander and Bingaman.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments, as modified, if modified, be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let me use the minute in opposition to the amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma may wish to speak in favor of his amendment.

This is the amendment to strike the funding and the provisions in the bill for the Advanced Technology Program. In my view, this would be a very bad step for us to take. I know there are some Members who do not believe this is a worthwhile use of taxpayers' dollars. I am not one of those. I believe the Federal Government should partner with industry to assist in the early stages of technology development, and particularly that is important when we compete with other countries that spend heavily to assist their industrial sectors to compete in world markets.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 956

Mr. President, we inadvertently left a cleared amendment off the list I read describing the managers' package. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 956 be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

I share my colleague's concern. We must ensure that the funding increases for the Office of Science at the Department of Energy are sufficient and that they are allocated to specific years so that there is a nexus between the needs of each of the various research programs and the amounts provided for each fiscal year. I will be pleased to work with my colleagues in conference to refine further these authorizations.

I will support efforts to authorize this important program which the Senate has so often voted to support, consistent of course with our ability to get a conference report that the Senate can pass.

I thank Senator Levin for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate.

Madam President, we did inadvertently leave one additional amendment off the list that I read describing the managers' package. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 973 be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Madam President, let me say very briefly that I very much appreciate Senator Reid's leadership in setting time aside and making this a priority for the Senate, and Senator McConnell as well. And, of course, I acknowledge the great work Senator Alexander has done at every stage in this process. He has done a terrific job, and he has been the persistent impetus for getting this legislation to this point and deserves great credit for it. Senator Domenici does as well. He took a very strong leadership role in the last Congress and again in this Congress in getting this done.

Of course, Senator Ensign and Senator Lieberman have been real leaders on the issue, and Senator Mikulski, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Hutchison, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi. All of them have played a major part.

This is multicommittee legislation and multi-Senator legislation. It is bipartisan, as was said. It is a good step for the Senate to be taking. I appreciate everyone's cooperation and help.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, let me speak again about the extraordinary effort that went into this legislation and talk particularly about the staff work that has brought us to this point.

I think everyone involved in this legislation knows this represents many days and many nights of hard work by staff people in our personal offices as well as on committee staff. We have seen a great example of how the staffs of the various committees can come together and produce a good product.

I will reiterate the leadership among Senators for this work. Senator Alexander, of course, deserves tremendous credit. Senator Domenici deserves tremendous credit. Senator Lieberman and Senator Ensign have both worked very hard on this legislation and deserve great credit as well. I know Senators Reid and McConnell acknowledged their good work. We also, of course, could not have done this without the leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi on the HELP Committee, and without the leadership of Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Hutchison. There are several others I am sure I should have on the list as well because this was a combined effort.

The three committees that put this legislation together were the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, under the leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi; of course, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee under Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens; and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The portion of this legislation that came from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee was reported out when Senator Domenici was the chairman in the last Congress. I was proud to work with him in doing that. I can recall the effort the three of us made--Senator Alexander, Senator Domenici, and myself--to persuade the President to make this a priority. He did make it a priority. Of course, he deserves credit for that as well.

Let me also talk for a minute about individual staff members on both sides of the aisle who worked very hard to make this a success--from the Commerce Committee: Jean Toal-Eisen, Jason Mulvihill, Chan Lieu, Beth Bacon, Jeff Bingham, H.J. Derr, Floyd Deschamps, and Christine Kurth; from the HELP Committee: Missy Rohrbach, Lindsay Hunsicker, Michael Yudin; from my staff: Carmel Martin, David Cleary, Anne Clough, Beth Buehlman, Roberto Rodriguez, and Ilyse Schuman; from the Energy Committee: Bob Simon, staff director Jonathan Epstein, who has been working with me tirelessly on this legislation, Sam Fowler, and, of course, our general counsel, Kathryn Clay, and Melanie Roberts; on Senator Alexander's staff: Matt Sonnesyn and Jack Wells are the two with whom I am most familiar who have worked so hard; from Senator Lieberman's staff: Rachel Stotsky, Craig Robinson, and Colleen Shogan; and from on my staff: My legislative director Trudy Vincent has been extremely involved and helpful in getting this legislation completed. I wish to acknowledge the great work done by Jason Unger and Mark Wetjen on Senator Reid's staff and by Libby Jarvis on Senator McConnell's staff.

This is legislation which could not have come together without the good work of all of these people whose names I have mentioned. They can be proud of their success in this venture.

Of course, this is only one hurdle in the process. It seems, in the legislative process, no matter how many hurdles jumped, there is always another ahead. We now have to find a way to reconcile any differences we have with the House on this set of issues. We hope we can do that successfully in the near future and send the bill to the President.

Again, I particularly congratulate Senator Alexander and Senator Domenici. I know Senator Alexander has some comments he wants to make.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007'' with Senators Smith, Akaka, Durbin, Kerry, and Lieberman. My colleagues may recall that similar legislation, S. 832, was introduced last Congress and ultimately reported out of the Finance Committee last year but unfortunately it never made it to the floor of the Senate. This Congress, the House has already passed taxpayer rights legislation which makes me optimistic that many of these long overdue reforms may finally become law.

This Act is a combination of a variety of well-vetted provisions that will ensure that our Nation's taxpayers are better able to prepare and file their tax returns each year in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and affordable. As long as we continue to require taxpayers to determine their own tax liability, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that we do not leave taxpayers vulnerable to abuses from those masquerading as tax professionals. The current environment is bad for everyone including the majority of tax return preparers who provide professional and much needed services to taxpayers in their communities. I encourage all of my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation before the next filing season begins.

The first section of the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act would create a $10 million matching grant program for lower income tax preparation clinics much like the program we currently have in place for tax controversies. I have seen first hand the impact free tax preparation clinics can have on taxpayers and their communities, as we are fortunate to have one of the best State-wide programs in the Nation in New Mexico. Tax Help New Mexico, which has been in operation for many years, helped over 20,000 New Mexicans prepare and file their returns last year, resulting in over $20 million in refunds--all without refund anticipation loans. This program has turned into one of the best delivery mechanisms for public assistance I have seen in the State and has been fortunate enough to receive additional funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the McCune Foundation. In order to continue to grow, though, we need to do our part in Congress and give them matching funding so they can continue their outreach into new communities in need of assistance.

The second set of provisions contained in this legislation would ensure that when taxpayers hire someone to help them with their tax returns they can be sure that the person is competent and professional. The first part of the bill makes sure that an enrolled agent, a tax professional licensed to practice before the IRS, shall have the exclusive right to describe him or herself as an ``enrolled agent,'' ``EA,'' or ``E.A.'' In New Mexico, enrolled agents play an important role in helping taxpayers with problems with the IRS and with preparing their returns. Enrolled agents have earned the right to use their credentials. Furthermore, we should protect the credentials of those who have taken the rigorous exams and have experience in tax preparation rather than allow others to confuse the public into thinking they too have the same credentials.

The next part of the bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what standards need to be met in order for a person to prepare tax returns commercially. Like all other tax professionals, this will require people who make a living preparing tax returns to pass a minimum competency exam and take brush up courses each year to keep up to date with changes in tax law. The majority of tax return preparers already meet these standards, including many who have received credentials from the State or from a nationally recognized association of accountants or tax return preparers. We provide specific authority to the Secretary to determine whether people who have already taken a written proficiency exam as part of some other tax return credentialing will need to take the new exam. The Secretary will be

able to exercise these authorizations only after thorough review of the specific examination and only for those examinations subsequently determined to be comparable. In that light, we urge the Secretary to exercise his authority in this area in a manner consistent with the goal of protecting taxpayers through ensuring the competency of enrolled preparers. The Treasury Department will also be required to operate a public awareness campaign so that taxpayers will know that they need to check to be sure that someone preparing their tax returns for a fee is qualified.

The fourth set of provisions would directly address the problems with refund anticipation loans (RALs)--a problem throughout the country, but one that is particularly troublesome in New Mexico. First, this bill requires refund loan facilitators to register with the Treasury Department. Refund loan facilitators are those people who solicit, process, or otherwise facilitate the making of a refund anticipation loan in relation to a tax return being electronically filed. The legislation also requires these refund loan facilitators to properly disclose to taxpayers that they do not have to get a RAL in order to file their return electronically, as well as clearly disclose what all the costs involved with the loan. Finally, the refund loan facilitators must disclose to taxpayers when the loans would allow their refunds to be offset by the amount of the loan. Much like the public awareness campaign for advertising the credentials required for preparing Federal tax returns, the Act requires the Treasury Department to operate a program to educate the public on the real costs of RALs as compared to other forms of credit. This program will be funded, at least in part, by amounts collected from penalties imposed on refund loan facilitators who have broken the law.

The next section of the bill is an issue that my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, has been actively working on for the last several years. This provision would authorize the Treasury Department to award grants to financial institutions or charitable groups that help low income taxpayers set up accounts at a bank or credit union. Because many taxpayers do not have checking or savings accounts, their refunds from IRS cannot be electronically wired to them. The alternative is to have the check mailed to the taxpayer or to have the refund immediately loaned to the taxpayer in the form of a RAL. Of course, getting people to set up a checking or savings account for purposes of receiving their tax refund will also have the benefits of getting many of these people to start saving for the first time.

Finally, we have added two new provisions to clarify existing law. The first clarifies that the National Taxpayer Advocate has the authority to issue taxpayer assistance orders in cases involving closing agreements and compromises. The other clarifies that the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to take into account a taxpayers specific facts and circumstances when evaluating an offer in compromise. Both of these provisions are the result of bipartisan negotiations and are an improvement to our tax system.

I hope my colleagues will join with me and the cosponsors of this bill to pass this important legislation. Our voluntary tax system is dependent on taxpayers being able to receive the best advice and assistance possible. We have a responsibility to our Nation's taxpayers to make sure that they do receive such advice and assistance. This bill goes a long way toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2007'' with Senators Smith, Akaka, Durbin, Kerry, and Lieberman. My colleagues may recall that similar legislation, S. 832, was introduced last Congress and ultimately reported out of the Finance Committee last year but unfortunately it never made it to the floor of the Senate. This Congress, the House has already passed taxpayer rights legislation which makes me optimistic that many of these long overdue reforms may finally become law.

This Act is a combination of a variety of well-vetted provisions that will ensure that our Nation's taxpayers are better able to prepare and file their tax returns each year in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and affordable. As long as we continue to require taxpayers to determine their own tax liability, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that we do not leave taxpayers vulnerable to abuses from those masquerading as tax professionals. The current environment is bad for everyone including the majority of tax return preparers who provide professional and much needed services to taxpayers in their communities. I encourage all of my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation before the next filing season begins.

The first section of the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act would create a $10 million matching grant program for lower income tax preparation clinics much like the program we currently have in place for tax controversies. I have seen first hand the impact free tax preparation clinics can have on taxpayers and their communities, as we are fortunate to have one of the best State-wide programs in the Nation in New Mexico. Tax Help New Mexico, which has been in operation for many years, helped over 20,000 New Mexicans prepare and file their returns last year, resulting in over $20 million in refunds--all without refund anticipation loans. This program has turned into one of the best delivery mechanisms for public assistance I have seen in the State and has been fortunate enough to receive additional funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the McCune Foundation. In order to continue to grow, though, we need to do our part in Congress and give them matching funding so they can continue their outreach into new communities in need of assistance.

The second set of provisions contained in this legislation would ensure that when taxpayers hire someone to help them with their tax returns they can be sure that the person is competent and professional. The first part of the bill makes sure that an enrolled agent, a tax professional licensed to practice before the IRS, shall have the exclusive right to describe him or herself as an ``enrolled agent,'' ``EA,'' or ``E.A.'' In New Mexico, enrolled agents play an important role in helping taxpayers with problems with the IRS and with preparing their returns. Enrolled agents have earned the right to use their credentials. Furthermore, we should protect the credentials of those who have taken the rigorous exams and have experience in tax preparation rather than allow others to confuse the public into thinking they too have the same credentials.

The next part of the bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury to determine what standards need to be met in order for a person to prepare tax returns commercially. Like all other tax professionals, this will require people who make a living preparing tax returns to pass a minimum competency exam and take brush up courses each year to keep up to date with changes in tax law. The majority of tax return preparers already meet these standards, including many who have received credentials from the State or from a nationally recognized association of accountants or tax return preparers. We provide specific authority to the Secretary to determine whether people who have already taken a written proficiency exam as part of some other tax return credentialing will need to take the new exam. The Secretary will be

able to exercise these authorizations only after thorough review of the specific examination and only for those examinations subsequently determined to be comparable. In that light, we urge the Secretary to exercise his authority in this area in a manner consistent with the goal of protecting taxpayers through ensuring the competency of enrolled preparers. The Treasury Department will also be required to operate a public awareness campaign so that taxpayers will know that they need to check to be sure that someone preparing their tax returns for a fee is qualified.

The fourth set of provisions would directly address the problems with refund anticipation loans (RALs)--a problem throughout the country, but one that is particularly troublesome in New Mexico. First, this bill requires refund loan facilitators to register with the Treasury Department. Refund loan facilitators are those people who solicit, process, or otherwise facilitate the making of a refund anticipation loan in relation to a tax return being electronically filed. The legislation also requires these refund loan facilitators to properly disclose to taxpayers that they do not have to get a RAL in order to file their return electronically, as well as clearly disclose what all the costs involved with the loan. Finally, the refund loan facilitators must disclose to taxpayers when the loans would allow their refunds to be offset by the amount of the loan. Much like the public awareness campaign for advertising the credentials required for preparing Federal tax returns, the Act requires the Treasury Department to operate a program to educate the public on the real costs of RALs as compared to other forms of credit. This program will be funded, at least in part, by amounts collected from penalties imposed on refund loan facilitators who have broken the law.

The next section of the bill is an issue that my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, has been actively working on for the last several years. This provision would authorize the Treasury Department to award grants to financial institutions or charitable groups that help low income taxpayers set up accounts at a bank or credit union. Because many taxpayers do not have checking or savings accounts, their refunds from IRS cannot be electronically wired to them. The alternative is to have the check mailed to the taxpayer or to have the refund immediately loaned to the taxpayer in the form of a RAL. Of course, getting people to set up a checking or savings account for purposes of receiving their tax refund will also have the benefits of getting many of these people to start saving for the first time.

Finally, we have added two new provisions to clarify existing law. The first clarifies that the National Taxpayer Advocate has the authority to issue taxpayer assistance orders in cases involving closing agreements and compromises. The other clarifies that the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to take into account a taxpayers specific facts and circumstances when evaluating an offer in compromise. Both of these provisions are the result of bipartisan negotiations and are an improvement to our tax system.

I hope my colleagues will join with me and the cosponsors of this bill to pass this important legislation. Our voluntary tax system is dependent on taxpayers being able to receive the best advice and assistance possible. We have a responsibility to our Nation's taxpayers to make sure that they do receive such advice and assistance. This bill goes a long way toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on April 25, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-106. The title of this committee hearing is, ``Challenges and Opportunities Facing American Agriculture Producers Today, Part III.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following legislation following bills: S. 294, S. 428, S. 924, S. 311, S. 675, S. 1142, the Identity Theft Prevention Act, and the promotion of Mr. Gribbin, in the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, April 25, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys.

II. Bills: S. 376, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007; Leahy, Specter, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, S. 119, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007; Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Cardin, S. 1079, Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act; Cardin, Warner, Kennedy, S. 735, Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007; Kennedy, Kyl, Coleman, Schumer, Leahy, Grassley, Cornyn, H.R. 740, Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007; Scott, Conyers, Forbes, Boucher, Jackson-Lee, Gutierrez, Sherman, S. 221, Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007; Grassley, Feingold, Kohl, Leahy, Durbin, S. 495, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007; Leahy, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, S. 239, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2007; Feinstein, S. 879, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007; (Kohl, Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Schumer, Coburn, Durbin.

III. Nominations: Robert Gideon Howard, Jr. to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Frederick J. Kapala to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Benjamin Hale Settle to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington; John Roberts Hackman to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia.

IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 125, designating May 18, 2007 as ``Endangered Species Day''; Feinstein, Collins, Feingold, Biden, S. Res. 116, designating May 2007 as ``National Autoimmune Disease Awareness Month''; Biden, S. Res. 146, designating June 20, 2007, as ``American Eagle Day''; Alexander, Byrd, Kennedy, Feinstein, S. Res. 162, commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers; Leahy, Specter, Biden, Grassley, Cornyn, Durbin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 to hold a hearing on mental health issues. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on whether the army is properly sized, organized, and equipped to respond to the most likely missions over the next two decades while retaining adequate capability to respond to all contingencies along the spectrum of combat in review of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The agenda to be considered: Oversight Hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 2 p.m., to receive testimony on efforts to improve the Department of Defense's language and cultural awareness capabilities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., to receive testimony on Department of Energy atomic energy defense programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 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. 175, to provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District; S. 324, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of water resources in the State of New Mexico; S. 542, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir; S. 1037, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, OR; S. 1116 and H.R. 902, to facilitate the use for irrigation and other purposes of water produced in connection with development of energy resources; and S. 1112 and H.R. 235, to allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report of the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1591, on Thursday, April 26, at 10 a.m., regardless of whether the Senate has yet received the papers from the House; that the time immediately following the prayer and the pledge until 12:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that the Senate vote, without any intervening action, provided that the message has been received in the Senate on passage of the conference report at 12:45 p.m. on Thursday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 172, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:15 a.m., Thursday, April 26; that on Thursday following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, with a period of morning business until 10 a.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein; with the Senate proceeding to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591, as provided for under a previous order.