Floor Statements

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

The hearing will be held on April 23, 2007 at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1115, a bill to promote the efficient use of oil, natural gas, and electricity, reduce oil consumption, and heighten energy efficiency standards for consumer products and industrial equipment, 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.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on April 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 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, Oregon; 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 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.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a comprehensive Energy efficiency bill. I am pleased to have the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, as my co-sponsor, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lugar, Senator Akaka, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig.

Energy efficiency can be viewed as the Nation's largest energy resource. Due to actions taken to increase efficiency since the 1973 oil crisis, we now save more energy each year than we get from any single energy supply resource, including oil.

When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law in August of 2005, it included a strong package of energy efficiency initiatives. However, just a month later, when hurricanes devastated our Nation's primary oil and gas supply region and many of us recognized that we needed to enact additional and more aggressive efficiency measures.

During the last 2 years, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices have reached all-time high levels. These price increases cost American families and businesses over $300 billion dollars each year. In the 2006 elections, voters sent us a clear message that they wanted Congress to address high energy prices and also to provide solutions to climate change. Energy efficiency policies can alleviate both of these problems.

Our bill includes provisions that will improve efficiency in vehicles, buildings, appliances and industrial equipment. The legislation is also intended to motivate States and utilities to recognize energy efficiency as a resource and to remove current disincentives to programs that will benefit utility customers while reducing demand for electricity and natural gas.

Improving our energy productivity through efficiency has multiple benefits--it lowers the costs of consumers' energy bills; decreases the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks from natural disasters or problems with foreign sources of supply; provides environmental benefits such as lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, energy efficiency investments help build local jobs and improve state economies.

The bill we are introducing today includes initiatives in six key areas: Promoting the development and use of advanced lighting technologies; Expediting new efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment; Promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries and energy storage; Setting aggressive goals for reducing gasoline consumption and improving overall energy productivity in the U.S.; Promoting Federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Assisting States, local governments and utilities in energy efficiency efforts.

In addition to the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, I want to emphasize that other Senate committees are working on complementary efficiency initiatives, including the energy efficiency tax provisions we are developing in the Finance Committee and CAFE standards legislation in the Commerce Committee.

Finally, for the information on my colleagues, this bill is the 4th in a quartet of Energy bills that will be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next few weeks. These bills are: S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act; S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act; and S. 962 the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage R D&D Act. We are working diligently to meet the Majority Leader's timetable for floor action on Energy legislation. I encourage Senators with questions or concerns about any of these bills to let me know so that we can try to address issues in a timely manner.

I have included at the end of my statement a preliminary estimate of the energy savings that would result from the implementation of the programs in this bill. I request that this estimate be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows.

Energy Saving Estimate for the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act

Potential savings from the appliance efficiency standards

included in Titles I and II: Electricity--At least 50 billion

kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8

million typical U.S. households; Natural gas--170 million

therms per year or enough to heat about a quarter million

typical U.S. homes; Water--At least 560 million gallons per

day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage;

and Dollars--More than $12 billion in net present benefits

for consumers.

Potential Savings From Federal Government Leadership in Efficiency--

Title V

The Federal Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion Btus or

``quads'' of energy during Fiscal Year 2005. The Federal

energy bill for Fiscal Year 2005 increased by 24 percent

compared to Fiscal Year 2004.

About 30 percent of the Federal energy use is in standard

buildings and about 60 percent is energy used by vehicles and

equipment. Although savings can not be estimated at this

time--the legislation requires the Federal Government to

achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy usage per square

foot by 2015 and to reduce its use of gasoline in fleet

vehicles by 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2016.

Potential Savings From Electric and Gas Utility Efficiency Programs--

Title VI

Assuming all State utility regulatory commissions and

nonregulated utilities adopt the energy efficiency policies

and cost-effective energy efficiency programs recommended in

this bill, the estimate cumulative potential energy savings

by 2020 would be 7.8 quads and the energy cost savings would

be $12 billion.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a comprehensive Energy efficiency bill. I am pleased to have the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee, the senior Senator from New Mexico, as my co-sponsor, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Lugar, Senator Akaka, Senator Murkowski and Senator Craig.

Energy efficiency can be viewed as the Nation's largest energy resource. Due to actions taken to increase efficiency since the 1973 oil crisis, we now save more energy each year than we get from any single energy supply resource, including oil.

When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law in August of 2005, it included a strong package of energy efficiency initiatives. However, just a month later, when hurricanes devastated our Nation's primary oil and gas supply region and many of us recognized that we needed to enact additional and more aggressive efficiency measures.

During the last 2 years, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity prices have reached all-time high levels. These price increases cost American families and businesses over $300 billion dollars each year. In the 2006 elections, voters sent us a clear message that they wanted Congress to address high energy prices and also to provide solutions to climate change. Energy efficiency policies can alleviate both of these problems.

Our bill includes provisions that will improve efficiency in vehicles, buildings, appliances and industrial equipment. The legislation is also intended to motivate States and utilities to recognize energy efficiency as a resource and to remove current disincentives to programs that will benefit utility customers while reducing demand for electricity and natural gas.

Improving our energy productivity through efficiency has multiple benefits--it lowers the costs of consumers' energy bills; decreases the vulnerability of the economy to energy price shocks from natural disasters or problems with foreign sources of supply; provides environmental benefits such as lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, energy efficiency investments help build local jobs and improve state economies.

The bill we are introducing today includes initiatives in six key areas: Promoting the development and use of advanced lighting technologies; Expediting new efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment; Promoting high efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries and energy storage; Setting aggressive goals for reducing gasoline consumption and improving overall energy productivity in the U.S.; Promoting Federal leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy; and Assisting States, local governments and utilities in energy efficiency efforts.

In addition to the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, I want to emphasize that other Senate committees are working on complementary efficiency initiatives, including the energy efficiency tax provisions we are developing in the Finance Committee and CAFE standards legislation in the Commerce Committee.

Finally, for the information on my colleagues, this bill is the 4th in a quartet of Energy bills that will be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next few weeks. These bills are: S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act; S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act; and S. 962 the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage R D&D Act. We are working diligently to meet the Majority Leader's timetable for floor action on Energy legislation. I encourage Senators with questions or concerns about any of these bills to let me know so that we can try to address issues in a timely manner.

I have included at the end of my statement a preliminary estimate of the energy savings that would result from the implementation of the programs in this bill. I request that this estimate be printed in the Record.

There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows.

Energy Saving Estimate for the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act

Potential savings from the appliance efficiency standards

included in Titles I and II: Electricity--At least 50 billion

kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8

million typical U.S. households; Natural gas--170 million

therms per year or enough to heat about a quarter million

typical U.S. homes; Water--At least 560 million gallons per

day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage;

and Dollars--More than $12 billion in net present benefits

for consumers.

Potential Savings From Federal Government Leadership in Efficiency--

Title V

The Federal Government consumed 1.1 quadrillion Btus or

``quads'' of energy during Fiscal Year 2005. The Federal

energy bill for Fiscal Year 2005 increased by 24 percent

compared to Fiscal Year 2004.

About 30 percent of the Federal energy use is in standard

buildings and about 60 percent is energy used by vehicles and

equipment. Although savings can not be estimated at this

time--the legislation requires the Federal Government to

achieve a 30 percent reduction in energy usage per square

foot by 2015 and to reduce its use of gasoline in fleet

vehicles by 30 percent in Fiscal Year 2016.

Potential Savings From Electric and Gas Utility Efficiency Programs--

Title VI

Assuming all State utility regulatory commissions and

nonregulated utilities adopt the energy efficiency policies

and cost-effective energy efficiency programs recommended in

this bill, the estimate cumulative potential energy savings

by 2020 would be 7.8 quads and the energy cost savings would

be $12 billion.

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

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

The hearing will be held on April 23, 2007 at 3 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1115, a bill to promote the efficient use of oil, natural gas, and electricity, reduce oil consumption, and heighten energy efficiency standards for consumer products and industrial equipment, 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.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce two pieces of vitally important, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that low-income seniors have full access to the benefits available to them under the Medicare Drug Benefit. The first piece of legislation makes critical improvements in the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) available to assist these individuals in meeting cost sharing, premium, and deductible requirements under Part D. The second will ensure that low-income seniors don't get caught in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or ``doughnut hole,'' simply because of where they purchase their Part D pharmaceuticals.

These bills were developed in close collaboration with Senator Smith, who also will be introducing two bills today to achieve other, critical improvements in the Medicare program for low-income seniors. Together, we believe this package of four bills will provide the reforms necessary to ensure that the Medicare program and the LIS function as they were intended, to ensure access to life-saving drug coverage for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Data indicates that a shockingly low number of seniors eligible for the LIS benefit are actually receiving the benefit. According to the January 2007 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), The Next Steps: Strategies to Improve the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, only 35 percent to 42 percent of beneficiaries who could have successfully applied for the LIS in 2006 were actually receiving it. Exacerbating this problem, NCOA also reports that overall LIS enrollment rates are slowing. In total for 2007, NCOA estimates that between 3.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries still must be identified and enrolled in the LIS. Furthermore, data indicates that certain LIS requirements result in many low-income seniors that should be eligible for the benefit being denied enrollment in LIS. I believe the modest policy changes created by the legislation I and Senator Smith are introducing will ensure that all low-income beneficiaries have access to the LIS.

The single most significant barrier to LIS eligibility is the asset test, which accounts for approximately 41 percent of LIS denials. As reported by NCOA, the asset test penalizes low income retirees who may have very modest savings. For example, approximately half of the people that failed the asset test have excess assets of $35,000 or less. These people tend to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. In addition the asset test is inherently discriminatory against certain categories of people, e.g., people who rent their homes.

My legislation, the Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act, will dramatically improve this inequity by raising the asset test limits to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. This will capture about half of individuals and two-thirds of couples who have been denied LIS because of excess resources.

As recommended by OIG in fall 2006, this legislation also allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to transfer tax filing information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) so they can better target beneficiaries who might be eligible for the LIS. In addition, this legislation creates an expedited LIS application process for pre- screened beneficiaries, prohibits the reporting of retirement account balances, life-insurance policies and in-kind contributions when determining a beneficiary's resource level, and prohibits LIS benefits from being counted as resources for the purposes of determining eligibility for other federal programs.

I also am introducing the Low-Income True Out-Of Pocket (TrOOP) Expense under Part D Assistance bill, which ensures that low-income Americans do not get ``stuck'' in the Part D ``doughnut hole'' simply because of where they choose to purchase Part D pharmaceuticals.

Unbelievably, under current regulation and guidance, individuals who are in the doughnut hole and receive Part D drugs from commercial pharmacies are permitted to count waivers or reductions in Part D cost- sharing to count towards their TrOOP. However, low-income individuals who tend to receive Part D drugs from safety-net pharmacies and other safety-net providers are not permitted to count similar waivers or reductions in Part D cost-sharing by safety-net providers towards their TrOOP. Thus, current law penalizes low-income individuals and makes it easier for them to get stuck in the doughnut hole--never accessing the catastrophic coverage to which they are entitled.

My legislation would undo this inequity and permit waivers and reductions for beneficiaries receiving care from safety-net providers to count towards beneficiaries' TrOOP. Specifically, the legislation will count waivers and reductions by certain safety-net hospitals and pharmacies, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), Pharmacy Assistance Programs (PAPs), and the Indian Health Service (IRS) toward TrOOP.

In closing, I would also like to offer my strong support for the two bills on which we worked very closely with Senator Smith and that he is introducing today. The first is the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act, which creates a permanent 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who becomes eligible for the LIS. It also requires CMS to provide such beneficiaries facilitated enrollment into the plans allowing, within 90 days, the beneficiary to be enrolled into the most appropriate plan for his or her needs. The legislation also waives the late enrollment penalty for LIS beneficiaries, provides a $1 per beneficiary authorization for State Health Insurance Programs, and funds the National Center on Senior Benefits and Outreach, which was created last year in the Older Americans Act.

The second piece of legislation creates important equity between institutionalized Part D beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and those dual eligibles who avoid initialization through a Home and Community Based Waiver (HCBW). Currently under Federal law, Part D cost-sharing requirements are waived for dual-eligible individuals that are institutionalized but are not waived for individuals in HCBWs. Senator Smith's legislation would make an important change to Federal law to all allow cost sharing under Part D to be waived for dual eligibles regardless of whether they are institutionalized or receiving care through HCBWs.

I also would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of several key senior citizen advocates in crafting all four important pieces of legislation, including: Paul Cotton and Kristen Sloan from the American Association of Retired Persons, Howard Bedlin and Sara Duda from the National Council on Aging, Lena O'Rourke and Marc Steinberg from Families USA, Patricia Nemore and Vicki Gottlich from the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Paul Precht, from the Medicare Rights Center. I would also like to thank the Staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA) for their prompt feedback and invaluable assistance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation, which will ensure that life saving pharmaceuticals are available to low-income Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the National Council on Aging Report, and the text of these bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce two pieces of vitally important, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that low-income seniors have full access to the benefits available to them under the Medicare Drug Benefit. The first piece of legislation makes critical improvements in the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) available to assist these individuals in meeting cost sharing, premium, and deductible requirements under Part D. The second will ensure that low-income seniors don't get caught in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, or ``doughnut hole,'' simply because of where they purchase their Part D pharmaceuticals.

These bills were developed in close collaboration with Senator Smith, who also will be introducing two bills today to achieve other, critical improvements in the Medicare program for low-income seniors. Together, we believe this package of four bills will provide the reforms necessary to ensure that the Medicare program and the LIS function as they were intended, to ensure access to life-saving drug coverage for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Data indicates that a shockingly low number of seniors eligible for the LIS benefit are actually receiving the benefit. According to the January 2007 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA), The Next Steps: Strategies to Improve the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, only 35 percent to 42 percent of beneficiaries who could have successfully applied for the LIS in 2006 were actually receiving it. Exacerbating this problem, NCOA also reports that overall LIS enrollment rates are slowing. In total for 2007, NCOA estimates that between 3.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries still must be identified and enrolled in the LIS. Furthermore, data indicates that certain LIS requirements result in many low-income seniors that should be eligible for the benefit being denied enrollment in LIS. I believe the modest policy changes created by the legislation I and Senator Smith are introducing will ensure that all low-income beneficiaries have access to the LIS.

The single most significant barrier to LIS eligibility is the asset test, which accounts for approximately 41 percent of LIS denials. As reported by NCOA, the asset test penalizes low income retirees who may have very modest savings. For example, approximately half of the people that failed the asset test have excess assets of $35,000 or less. These people tend to be older, female, widowed, and living alone. In addition the asset test is inherently discriminatory against certain categories of people, e.g., people who rent their homes.

My legislation, the Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act, will dramatically improve this inequity by raising the asset test limits to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. This will capture about half of individuals and two-thirds of couples who have been denied LIS because of excess resources.

As recommended by OIG in fall 2006, this legislation also allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to transfer tax filing information to the Social Security Administration (SSA) so they can better target beneficiaries who might be eligible for the LIS. In addition, this legislation creates an expedited LIS application process for pre- screened beneficiaries, prohibits the reporting of retirement account balances, life-insurance policies and in-kind contributions when determining a beneficiary's resource level, and prohibits LIS benefits from being counted as resources for the purposes of determining eligibility for other federal programs.

I also am introducing the Low-Income True Out-Of Pocket (TrOOP) Expense under Part D Assistance bill, which ensures that low-income Americans do not get ``stuck'' in the Part D ``doughnut hole'' simply because of where they choose to purchase Part D pharmaceuticals.

Unbelievably, under current regulation and guidance, individuals who are in the doughnut hole and receive Part D drugs from commercial pharmacies are permitted to count waivers or reductions in Part D cost- sharing to count towards their TrOOP. However, low-income individuals who tend to receive Part D drugs from safety-net pharmacies and other safety-net providers are not permitted to count similar waivers or reductions in Part D cost-sharing by safety-net providers towards their TrOOP. Thus, current law penalizes low-income individuals and makes it easier for them to get stuck in the doughnut hole--never accessing the catastrophic coverage to which they are entitled.

My legislation would undo this inequity and permit waivers and reductions for beneficiaries receiving care from safety-net providers to count towards beneficiaries' TrOOP. Specifically, the legislation will count waivers and reductions by certain safety-net hospitals and pharmacies, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), Pharmacy Assistance Programs (PAPs), and the Indian Health Service (IRS) toward TrOOP.

In closing, I would also like to offer my strong support for the two bills on which we worked very closely with Senator Smith and that he is introducing today. The first is the Medicare Part D Outreach and Enrollment Enhancement Act, which creates a permanent 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who becomes eligible for the LIS. It also requires CMS to provide such beneficiaries facilitated enrollment into the plans allowing, within 90 days, the beneficiary to be enrolled into the most appropriate plan for his or her needs. The legislation also waives the late enrollment penalty for LIS beneficiaries, provides a $1 per beneficiary authorization for State Health Insurance Programs, and funds the National Center on Senior Benefits and Outreach, which was created last year in the Older Americans Act.

The second piece of legislation creates important equity between institutionalized Part D beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and those dual eligibles who avoid initialization through a Home and Community Based Waiver (HCBW). Currently under Federal law, Part D cost-sharing requirements are waived for dual-eligible individuals that are institutionalized but are not waived for individuals in HCBWs. Senator Smith's legislation would make an important change to Federal law to all allow cost sharing under Part D to be waived for dual eligibles regardless of whether they are institutionalized or receiving care through HCBWs.

I also would like to express my gratitude for the assistance of several key senior citizen advocates in crafting all four important pieces of legislation, including: Paul Cotton and Kristen Sloan from the American Association of Retired Persons, Howard Bedlin and Sara Duda from the National Council on Aging, Lena O'Rourke and Marc Steinberg from Families USA, Patricia Nemore and Vicki Gottlich from the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Paul Precht, from the Medicare Rights Center. I would also like to thank the Staff at the Social Security Administration (SSA) for their prompt feedback and invaluable assistance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation, which will ensure that life saving pharmaceuticals are available to low-income Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the National Council on Aging Report, and the text of these bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the time reserved on Senator Harkin's side.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of S. 5, the stem cell enhancement bill of 2007. Many of my colleagues have eloquently stated reasons for supporting this bill over the past 2 days. The passage of this bill would be an important step forward for research into treatments of devastating diseases. In addition, passing S. 5 will help the United States as a leader in biomedical research, a leader in transparent and ethical research practices, and a leader in developing safe, effective treatments for diseases. I wish to see stem cell therapies developed in this country so we can ensure the safety and availability of these treatments for American families and at the same time create jobs for highly skilled workers to do the necessary research and to develop these new treatments.

Our current policy puts us at a severe disadvantage to other countries. As the Director of the NIH said at a recent hearing, our current stem cell policy is akin to working with one hand tied behind our backs. Scientists in most other countries are at an advantage to U.S. scientists because they are allowed to study the best stem cell lines and do so with government funding.

Let me explain this world stem cell policies map I have put up. It is color coded to show the different stem cell policies that exist in different parts of

the world. We have essentially chosen four colors or four categories of policies I am trying to focus on. First, we have the countries in yellow which have not adopted stem cell policies. You can see those countries are fairly extensive. Next to those are those that have adopted stem cell policies. The United States is part of that group. Those are the countries in gray on this world map. The United States is among the most restrictive of those countries that are in gray, but we do have other countries that have policies that are in that category as well.

Third are the countries in light brown which allow the creation of stem cell lines from leftover embryos in IVF clinics. We can see those light-brown countries. Passing S. 5 would move the United States into that group of countries, such as France and Canada and Brazil.

The final group depicted on this world map is those that are shaded in dark brown. These countries allow other laboratory techniques to be used to create embryonic stem cell lines. You will notice that many of these countries have very strong scientific research programs. I particularly mention the United Kingdom, India, and China as part of that. Scientists in these countries, other than the United States, are free to use the type of stem cells best suited to their research, whether they are adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells created before 2001 or embryonic stem cells created after 2001. In fact, many countries have been promoting stem cell research because they see this as an opportunity to get ahead in this field during a time when U.S. scientists are restricted to less useful stem cell lines.

For example, the United Kingdom has established a world stem cell bank to collect, characterize, and distribute embryonic stem cell lines to researchers around the world. The United Kingdom has also developed a comprehensive national regulatory system that requires researchers to follow strict ethical guidelines. While these regulations may slow research to some extent, embryonic research is an area that merits extra care and transparency and oversight. We should not relinquish our duty to uphold high ethical research standards to other countries or to individual States within this country or to the market more generally.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Many other countries, including Singapore, Korea, and Australia, also have federally funded centers for embryonic stem cells. However, it will be difficult for the United States to capitalize on the research advances that are made in these other countries since federally funded scientists in the United States are restricted from collaborating with foreign scientists who use the stem cell lines that were generated after 2001.

Furthermore, we can't leave this important field of science to the private sector alone. We have a long history of bipartisan support for basic science research in this country precisely because it does not make financial sense for industries to invest substantially in early- stage research. Any scientist will tell you that human embryonic stem cell research is still in its early stages, and that it has gone more slowly than it would have otherwise gone because of the restrictions currently in place in our own policy. Furthermore, most cell-based therapies, including bone marrow stem cell transplants, were first developed in academic research hospitals and have never been widely utilized. This means Federal funding is even more important for cell- based therapies such as stem cell transplants than it is for other types of treatments.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support S. 5. It is an important step to keep the United States a world leader in the field of biomedical research, and it will give hope to many of our citizens for the treatments they desperately need.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

The hearing will be held on April 26, 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. 169, to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System; S. 312/H.R. 497, to authorize the Marion Park Project and Committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion; S. 580, to amend the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails; S. 686, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail; S. 722, to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of Arizona; S. 783, to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana; S. 890, to provide for certain administrative and support services for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission; and H.R. 1047, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers' Memorial Military Museum located in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park System.

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

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

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public

that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Monday, April 16, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 731, the National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007 and S. 962, the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007.

Due to the limited available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washing- ton, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected].

For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson or Gina Weinstock.

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

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.

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

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 987, the Biofuels for Energy Security and Transportation Act.

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

For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on his leadership on this issue. His amendment is well designed and meritorious. I urge all colleagues to support the amendment.

I wish to speak about why I think this is so important to our rural counties. I do think the legislation is important because it lays out a period of years during which counties will know they have a set amount of money coming in to assist with the various responsibilities they have put upon them.

This amendment also, of course, involves a full funding of the payment in lieu of taxes, which is extremely important to many of the counties in my State, particularly. This payment in lieu of taxes is designed to provide some funding to those counties that have lost their tax base by virtue of the Federal Government owning so much of the land in those counties.

Both programs were authorized through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the committee has remained active on both issues in recent years. With regard to the Secure Rural Schools, or ``county payments'', program, we have held a number of oversight and legislative hearings during the last couple of years. Accordingly, I would like to briefly explain some of the key changes that this amendment makes to the original program.

The most significant change is in the formula. The new formula has three components: the original formula, the number of qualifying acres of Federal land, and per capita personal income. The mathematics of the formula are rooted at the county level, and the ultimate payments are determined by calculating what would be each participating county's portion of the total annual funding for the program. As a result, unlike the original formula, the new formula responds to the annual funding amount, permitting an orderly phase-down of the total annual funding levels.

The legislative text memorializes the component of the original formula at the county level in the definition of ``base share'' in paragraphs (2)(B)(i) and (9)(B)(i) of section 3. In developing the formula, we looked to existing data from the Federal agencies, recognizing that the specific data may change as a result of updating or correction. For the Forest Service, paragraph (2)(B)(i) of section 3 describes what the Forest Service referred to as the ``potential county share'' when it calculated payment amounts under the original formula on March 1, 2002. For the Bureau of Land Management, paragraph (9)(B)(i) of section 3 describes what the BLM referred to as ``payment amounts to each eligible county'' on its November 14, 2002, certification to the Treasury Department of payments made under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. The per capita personal income data was gathered from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' Regional Economic Accounts, Table CA1-3, 030.

Total funding for the program would be gradually reduced to approximately 72 percent of the fiscal year 2006 level by the end of the 5-year reauthorization. During the first 4 years of the reauthorization, additional funds would be provided to the uniquely affected States of Washington, California, and Oregon to ensure that they can make a reasonable transition to the new funding levels under the new formula. For fiscal year, 2007, the transition funding would provide the three States an amount equal to last year's levels, and then their total county payments funding would be reduced by 10 percent annually through 2010. Total funding levels in each of those States would be determined under the new formula in 2011. If counties that received county payments in fiscal year 2006 decided to optout of the county payments program, then those counties would instead receive the payment amounts required by the 1908 or 1937 acts and the county payments funding to their States during that fiscal year would be reduced by their corresponding share of the fiscal year 2006 county payments funding.

The amendment also focuses the county payments funding on resource advisory committee, ``RAC'', collaboration, which was one of the most successful aspects of the original law. Most counties are required to spend at least 13 percent of their total county payments program funding on special projects on federal land--unless they choose to forego that portion of the funding. Exceptions have been made where experience has shown that the 15-20 percent of total program funding available for special projects on Federal land, under title II, may be inadequate.

As recommended by an in-depth study of RACs under the county payments program, we have made a few changes to the RAC representation. The editions allow some key interest groups that currently are not adequately represented to participate on RACs. They also provide communities with some flexibility where existing requirements were unnecessarily difficult or awkward to fulfill.

As discussed in the study, in a number of cases, the Federal land management issues in any particular region simply were not relevant to a couple of the interest groups required to be represented under the original law. For example, while wild horse and burro interest groups are key stakeholders on many RACs, there also are many RACs in areas of the country with no wild

horses or burros. In such cases, the study found that some counties simply could not find individuals willing to serve on RACs that met the letter and spirit of the existing criteria.

None of the editions exclude any of the interest groups currently represented on RACs, and the Secretaries retain appointment authority. As a result, the modest expansion should neither disadvantage any group currently participating on RACs nor disrupt in any way the collaboration on RACs. To the contrary, it should improve the collaboration by ensuring that RACs are adequately staffed with the appropriate interest groups.

County funding under title III has been restricted and focused on programs that indirectly benefit public land management. In addition, provisions have been added to title III to encourage compliance with its terms and greater awareness of the counties' efforts by Federal land managers.

Finally, a degree of stability for revenue sharing payments to counties is provided under the amendment. Stabilizing payments is one of the primary purposes of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self- Determination Act, but as the recent experience with its expiration in 2006 exemplifies, a degree of stability remains necessary over the longterm. Section 3 of the amendment provides for 25 percent payments to be distributed based on a 7-year rolling average. This will ensure that counties receive the same level of overall payments while at the same time reducing to a significant degree the sometimes dramatic annual fluctuations of Federal payments that make county budgeting difficult.

By ensuring full funding for PILT, annual fluctuations in those payments also will be reduced through 2012. PILT also is a crucial part of ensuring an orderly transition for the States of California, Oregon, and Washington. And finally, full funding for PILT will provide a more equitable level of support to those counties with Federal land that does not qualify for the county payments program.

In all, the amendment provides for more secure rural schools in more States and counties around the country, healthier National Forests for all Americans to enjoy, and the foundation for a legacy of public lands collaboration that we hope will provide for community, economic, and environmental benefits for decades to come.

Let me also speak briefly about the amendment my friend from North Carolina has offered to insist and to require, I believe, 80 percent of the funds to be used for schools. It will be a substantial mistake to adopt that amendment, because it is a one-size-fits-all solution, when we have very different circumstances in each State.

For example, in my State, we have what we call an education equalization formula. That means the State takes credit for whatever the counties were to put into education. So the effect of giving this money to the counties would be that the State would reduce its contribution to the schools in that county by a proportionate amount or by 95 percent of that amount. This would not work in my State. It would not have the intended effect of getting more money to the schools, which I know is the purpose the Senator from North Carolina has.

It is better to stick with the amendment Senator Wyden has crafted here, and give the discretion to each State and each local community to decide how to best spend those funds to meet the obligation they have to their constituents. That is the purpose of the legislation. That was the original purpose of the county payments legislation, certainly the original purpose of the PILT legislation, as well. That is the best result.

I hope my colleagues will support the Wyden amendment and will not support the Burr amendment. That is the best result for us. I hope that is the end result once the voting is concluded.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has jurisdiction regarding the insular areas of the United States, I am concerned about provisions in the House passed supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 1591, that would alter the way minimum wage levels are set in the U.S. territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI. Senators Akaka and Inouye share my concern and we would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished manager of the bill regarding our concerns.

As the Senator may know, in recognition of the special challenges that the territories face in promoting economic development, the Fair Labor Standards Act. FLSA, provides that the transition from the territories' historic subminmum wage levels up to the national minimum wage is managed by special industry committees. These committees convene ever 2 years, carefully analyze the islands economies, and recommend incremental increases toward the national minimum wage based upon those analyses.

This process has worked well and has successfully raised the minimum wage in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands up to the national minimum wage. The process currently applies in American Samoa which continues to have regular increases in its minimum wage toward the national level. However, this Special Industry Committee process does not apply in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, because the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA have never applied there. Section 503(c) of the Covenant to Establish the CNMI in Political Union with the United States--approved by P.L. 94- 241--specifically authorized Congress to extend the national minimum wage to the CNMI and, in 1998 the Committee Energy and Natural Resources favorably reported legislation Senate Report 105-201 that would have extended the national minimum wage as authorized. That legislation would also have extended the FLSA's Special Industry Committee transition provisions to the CNMI just as they apply to American Samoa.

On March 1, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing to examine economic conditions in the islands and we found the situation in both the CNMI and American Samoa very worrisome. More recently, I met with the Governor of American Samoa, Togiola Tulafono, and with a delegation from the CNMI headed by the resident representative, Pete Tenorio, and the Lieutenant Governor, Tim Villagomez, who expressed their concern about the House-passed minimum wage legislation that would increase their islands' minimum wages based on a fixed schedule, and without the periodic economic analyses conducted by the Special Industry Committees under the FLSA. These island leaders asked for my support in assuring that the FLSA's transition process will be used to assure a smooth transition from the local territorial minimum wage to the national minimum wage.

We share the concerns that these island leaders have brought to our attention and recognize that they have no representation here in the Senate. Accordingly, we ask the distinguished manager and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as this legislation is reconciled with the House bill in conference committee, that he

seeks an agreement that the FLSA's Special Industry Committees will be used in these two territories, as they were used in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We believe that this is important to assuring a smooth transition to the national minimum wage in these islands, and to avoiding unnecessary economic disruption.

I thank the distinguished manager and look forward to working with him to develop appropriate language as H.R. 1591 is considered in the conference committee.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to New Mexico's Tuskegee Airmen. With the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to John Allen, Robert Lawrence, and James Williams, we express our gratitude for their service, sacrifice, and leadership. Their military service in World War II helped pave the way for the future desegregation of our Armed Forces and country.

Each of these men distinguished themselves while serving our Nation. Robert Lawrence flew 33 separate combat missions over Italy, defending American bombers from the Luftwaffe. John Allen spent 20 years working for the Strategic Air Command following his World War II service. James Williams fought against segregationist policies at his base before becoming an accomplished surgeon. The Congressional Gold Medal, and invitation to the Capitol, shows how far we have come; many of the Tuskegee Airmen can recall when Black Americans were excluded from these hallowed hallways. However, I know it will take more than this award to eradicate the remaining vestiges of racism and prejudice these men have experienced. I pledge to continue working in that spirit and will keep these men in mind in the process.

The great State of New Mexico can be proud it is home to three such outstanding men. I hope that each of them knows how very much we value their contributions to our society in their efforts working for justice, our military for what the service they performed while in uniform, and our nation for teaching all Americans the importance of equality at any cost. I again thank them for all they have done.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today on behalf of the Tuskegee Airmen; specifically, I would like to speak about Dr. James Williams, a Tuskegee Airman, renowned physician, and one of my Las Cruces constituents. He has lived a fascinating life and I think that the following story truly exemplifies why he is deserving of a Congressional Gold Medal.

As a World War II-era first lieutenant in the Army Air Corps, Dr. Williams was put into a terribly difficult situation when he refused a superior White officer's order to sign a base regulation. The effect of this regulation would have been to keep Black officers from entering the White officers' club, tennis courts, and pool. He rightly recognized that a segregated Army was not one that would be able to fight wars together. Because of this act of disobedience, he and 100 other Black officers were sent to Godman Field, KY, where they were met by 75 armed MPs. Held under house arrest at Godman, some there felt that they were being more closely watched than the German POWs being housed there.

Thankfully, the house arrest only lasted for 5 days before the Black officers were able to show that the White officers looking to keep the base facilities segregated were failing to follow Army regulations. They were quickly released and returned back to Freeman Field. However, a letter of reprimand

stayed in all of their files until 1995, when the Air Force officially vindicated them.

Though Dr. Williams's unit never saw action in the European theater, they did fight against racism and for equality while serving our Nation. His contributions to this fight did not end with his military career. As a surgeon and the president of the Cook County Physicians Association, he worked to end discrimination in Chicago area hospitals. He met with President Kennedy on the issue and also served as Dr. Martin Luther King's physician when he was in Chicago.

New Mexico is lucky to have such a great man as a constituent and I am pleased to see that he and his comrades have finally received their Congressional gold medals. It is late in coming, but I believe it demonstrates that our Nation recognizes his fight as our own. Using Dr. Williams's selfless example, I will continue working to ensure equality for all Americans and end discrimination of all kinds.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 587.

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

Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to take away any incentive to sell off our National Park System, or forests or wildlife system, by ensuring that we not count revenues from those sales in order to get a balanced budget. That is the idea behind it.

I am informed by the chairman of the Budget Committee that he would have to oppose the amendment in this form but he is not necessarily in disagreement about the purpose I am trying to accomplish. So I ask him his views on it before taking any further action.

Madam President, this amendment would preclude the sale of National Park, National Wildlife Refuge and National Forest lands as a means of paying ongoing operating expenses of the Federal Government. The amendment would have reinstated the budget treatment of these land sales as it existed prior to 1995 and would preclude the sell-off of our national heritage to balance the budget.

On too many occasions over the past several Congresses, controversial land sales and leasing proposals have been advanced within the context of the Federal budget process. These provisions have complicated the consideration of the budget and have frustrated the efforts of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure responsible stewardship of our Federal lands.

I understand that the chairman of the Budget Committee has concerns about changing the scoring rules in the context of this budget resolution. I have agreed to withdraw my amendment, with the understanding that the chairman of the Budget Committee will work with me and with the leadership of the Congressional Budget Office to address this important issue during the course of this year. It is my hope and expectation that this serious problem can be addressed prior to consideration of the next budget resolution. I ask unanimous consent that several letters in support of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in light of the position of the chairman of the Budget Committee, I will withdraw the amendment and work with him in the coming months to see if we can get this issue addressed in another way so we don't have this incentive--not for the sale of all lands, of course, but for the sale of these particular lands to which we give a special designation.

With that, I withdraw amendment No. 587.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce the Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007, along with my co-sponsors, Senators Domenici, Tester, Bunning, Salazar, Obama, and Webb. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes and improves the carbon capture and storage program at the Department of Energy that was first explicitly authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. With the attention that the topic of global warming has been getting, it is becoming ever clearer that we need answers to the practical questions of what needs to occur so that we can decide on the role that carbon capture and storage will play in our future energy system. This bill, as well as a bill that has previously been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, S. 731, begins to lay the foundation for a bipartisan and effective approach to these issues.

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