Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Smith to introduce the Greater Access To Education, or GATE Act, of 2007. This legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to make college more affordable, and thus provide greater access to postsecondary education for lower income students and working families. Simply put, this bill would expand expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit, prevent aid for needy students from reducing the credit, and make the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits refundable.

The cost of attending college in the U.S. has grown by 44 percent since 2000, far outpacing the median growth in income. We've seen a 35 percent jump in inflation-adjusted average tuition and fees for in- state students at public colleges and universities since 2001-02. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than just last year, averaging $12,796 including room and board.

Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise Pell Grant Scholarships for needy students. This critical student aid has been frozen at just over $4000 for four years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college. Last year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs.

At the same time, we're seeing increasing competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. And these students command higher tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there's a smaller proportion of the financial aid budget available for low income students at colleges with rising tuitions.

A recent report by Education Trust found that many of the flagship and research-extensive public universities have reallocated financial aid resources away from the low income students who need help to go to college--mostly to compete for high income students who would enroll in college regardless of the amount of aid they receive. Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000--a staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995.

In addition, many colleges and universities are now using ``enrollment and revenue management'' firms to help manage admissions and financial aid. I am concerned that too many schools are trying to leverage their financial aid to entice wealthier and high scoring students to attend their schools, at the expense of aid to lower

income students. In essence, they're directing financial aid dollars to students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings.

As a result, low income students are disproportionately bearing the brunt of increased college tuition and fees. In turn, more and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. And, we've seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 in debt.

And, last year, Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student aid programs, pushing college further out of reach for American families. It is the largest single cut the Federal Government has made to student aid programs, and it is expected to increase the debt burden of students and their families as many borrowers of student loans will face higher interest payments.

Congress, simply, has moved in the wrong direction, and failed to help make college more affordable for students from low income and working families.

Full time students receive about $3,100 per year in aid in the form of grants and tax benefits at 4-year public institutions. In 2003-04, however, only 56 percent of 4-year public institution students from families with incomes below $30,000 received sufficient grant aid and tax benefits to cover tuition and fees.

Even worse, we know that each year there are hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college but do not do so because of financial barriers.

We must reverse this course and make college more affordable for students from low-income and working families.

The first priority for this Congress should be to increase student aid for needy students. We must increase the amount of Pell grants to at least $5,100.

The next thing we should do is make sure that the existing education tax credits work effectively for the families that need them most. The Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits have helped millions of Americans finance their college education. For this tax year, the credits allow eligible tax filers to reduce their tax liability by receiving a credit of up to $1,650 for the Hope program or up to $2,000 for the Lifetime Learning credit for tuition and course-related fees paid for a single student.

Unfortunately, research shows that these tax credits are not working as effectively as they could be. They do not support students who are currently enrolled in college to any significant degree, and they do not induce greater numbers of students, including working adults who need to upgrade their education and skills, to earn a postsecondary degree.

Many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students who attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those attending community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit.

For college students attending institutions with relatively high tuition rates, the maximum credit will be available to cover the higher tuition. This is not the case, however, for many students, particularly the vast majority of community college students, as well as hundreds of thousands of students attending public four-year colleges, who attend college where the tuition is lower. These students are not able to access the full credit because tuition at these institutions is lower than the maximum credit, and the scope of the credit is limited to tuition and related expenses. College students must pay for much more than just tuition, however, including room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees.

Further, a student's eligibility for the Hope tax credit is actually reduced by any grants the student receives--Federal, State, or private. The impact of this limitation is felt particularly by the by the low income students that receive Pell Grants or other Federal or State assistance. Often, the assistance received fully offsets the amount of the credit.

This legislation is simple and straightforward, and is crafted to address these shortcomings. First, in addition to tuition, it allows the Hope credit to cover room and board, required fees, books, supplies, and equipment. It is important to note that the IRS Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as Section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre- paid tuition plans.

As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges. The cost for books and supplies alone can be as high as $1000 per year.

In addition, the legislation changes the IRS Code so that any Federal Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending four-year public colleges.

But these fixes only get to a part of the problem. Because the education tax credits are not refundable, a family of four must earn above $30,000 to get the maximum credit. A student or working family must have a positive tax liability to receive the credit. Nearly half of all families with college students do not get the full credit because their income is too low.

In fact, only 36 percent of filers claiming the credits at all had incomes under $30,000; less than 10 percent of filers claiming the credits had incomes under $15,000. By contrast, 36 percent of filers claiming the credits earned $50,000 or more.

Making the credits refundable would ensure that families in lower tax brackets are eligible for the maximum benefits and would thus make college more affordable to those students and families who need the most assistance.

I believe we all can agree that maintaining a skilled and educated workforce should rank as one of our highest priorities. The National Academy of Sciences projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow.

This Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that every capable student who wants to go to college should be able to, which will in turn ensure that we have workers to fill the high-quality, high-wage jobs we are working so hard to create. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992.

Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico.

Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name.

The Senate passed a bill in the 108th Congress to name the same courthouse for Judge Campos by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up the measure and it failed to be signed into law. I rise again to ask the Senate to pass the bill and honor the work and dedication of Judge Santiago Campos.

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

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

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, examining the economic impacts of climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

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 Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-5836.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

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

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on transportation sector fuel efficiency, including challenges to and incentives for increased oil savings through technological innovation including plug- in hybrids.

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 Michael Carr at (202) 224- 8164 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Madam President, the issue of global warming is more and more on the minds of Americans. There is good reason why it is. I think we are familiar now with the litany of adverse consequences that is associated with unlimited release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The scientific reports are warning us about rising sea levels, about dangerous heat waves, about increasingly devastating hurricanes and other weather events. There are always uncertainties about understanding the Earth's climate, but one thing is clear: Uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with no real strategy to reduce those gases is irresponsible and dangerous at this point in our history. It is a great challenge that we face to reduce these emissions in this country and countries around the world. Even individual States within the United States, and regions of this country, are leading the way in dealing with this issue.

The truth is, unless the United States as a whole and the developing countries that have rapidly growing economies find a way to reduce emissions, we are likely to see this entire planet covered with a blanket of gases that will take centuries to dissipate.

In 2005 the Senate passed a resolution setting forth an approach to tackling the challenges of climate change. That resolution called for adoption of a mandatory, economy-wide program that will slow, stop, and then reverse greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy and that will encourage action by developing nations. Meeting those various tests set out in that resolution will require a bipartisan commitment to understand the impact of any legislative approach.

Today I am joining with my colleague, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, in circulating a bipartisan discussion draft on global warming legislation. The choice to release this discussion draft reflects our desire to modify or approve that legislation in the coming months before it is introduced. This is our commitment to create a bipartisan process that will focus discussion in a constructive direction.

I see three main challenges that we face in this process. First, we need to persuade our colleagues on the program that we have chosen; that is, a cap and trade proposal that incorporates market-based mechanisms and funding for technology development. In 2005 over 53 Members of the Senate went on record in support of such a proposal by defending that sense-of-the-Senate resolution and voting for it. We need to continue to expand that number. We need to engage the administration, which has refused to support such measures for reducing greenhouse gases.

To begin to meet this first challenge, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to two documents. The first is an analysis by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, or EIA. This was in September of last year. I joined with five other Senators in submitting a request, a discussion draft to the Energy Information Administration asking them to analyze it. Earlier this month, they returned with very favorable results, showing that it is possible to implement a cap-and-trade proposal that begins to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy. The Energy Information Administration of this administration showed that the program has only minor impacts on gross domestic product--a quarter of 1 percent by 2030. That is equal to slowing the rate of economic growth by roughly 1 month over the next 20-plus years.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of this EIA analysis following the completion of my remarks.

The second document to which I wish to call attention is a study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In October of 2005, Senator Jeffords and I asked CBO to address a debate that has been occurring in the Senate. Most experts agree that significant cuts in fossil fuel use is required if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But there has been a debate about whether the appropriate strategy was to exclusively fund technology development through tax incentives and through Federal programs or, on the contrary, to put a price on carbon by implementing a cap-and-trade proposal. CBO's analysis demonstrated that the most effective policy was a combination of these two.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of that CBO report following the completion of my remarks as well.

Madam President, the second challenge we face in this debate is to figure out the appropriate way to structure a cap-and- trade program. Putting targets and timetables aside for a moment and determining the appropriate structure of a cap-and-trade system in order that it functions properly will require an enormous amount of focus and attention. For over a year, I have worked in a bipartisan manner with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, to explore many of these issues. In February of last year we released a white paper from the Energy Committee entitled, ``Design Elements of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System.'' That white paper laid out four basic questions about the design of the cap-and- trade proposal. I was very encouraged that we received detailed and constructive comments from over 150 major companies, NGOs, and individuals.

On April 4, 2006, we hosted a day-long workshop with 29 of these respondents talking about their reaction to the white paper. This was the first such discussion in Congress to have taken place. My colleagues can find a transcript of this conference on the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint statement from my colleague, Senator Domenici, and myself that summarized the conference.

Madam President, the third challenge we face in making progress on this issue is getting political consensus on the right levels of control. Here I am talking about the level of stringency and the aggressiveness of the program. There have already been a number of bills introduced this year. I commend all my colleagues who dedicated their time and effort to addressing this issue. First and foremost, of course, Senators Lieberman and McCain have reintroduced their legislation. These two Senators have been leaders on the issue from the beginning. Also, Senators Sanders and Boxer have reintroduced legislation that Senator Jeffords drafted last year, and I commend them for their leadership and their bold vision. As chairs of the two committees engage in the debate on global warming issues, I plan to work very closely with Senator Boxer to ensure that everything we do

will keep momentum on global warming legislation moving forward.

I also commend Senators Feinstein and Carper for working together to introduce legislation last week. Senator Feinstein was on our Energy Committee. She is not on that committee in this Congress, and she will be missed. But her leadership in this area is very important.

I also would like to acknowledge and congratulate the efforts of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This is a unique and diverse group of industry and NGOs that have come together to offer principles on global warming legislation and recommendations for that legislation.

With all these bills and strategies for reducing greenhouse gases on the table, it is vital that we work together to craft sensible policy that can be enacted sooner rather than later. The science tells us that action is needed immediately and that the longer we delay the more difficult the problem will be. I believe the modest impacts that are identified from our proposal, the one Senator Specter and I are circulating, as shown by the Energy Information Administration analysis, will provide a basis to explore somewhat more aggressive reduction targets. It is for this reason that we do not want to introduce our bill without first giving great deliberation to different targets and approaches that could gain political consensus in passing legislation.

One thing is clear: We cannot delay. For this reason, I hope to promote a legislative approach that will reflect a constructive center in this often polarized debate.

In circulating this discussion draft, Senator Specter and I are setting forth a process. The first step of the process is to invite Senate offices to a series of workshops with experts on the issue to educate and understand the impacts of the legislation. These sessions will be open to Senate staff. We also, of course, want to invite participation or observation by representatives from the administration. The first of the workshops will be February 2 in the afternoon.

We also need to hear from the public and interested stakeholders. In the coming weeks, Senator Specter and I will be outlining a process to meet with stakeholders from industry, labor, environmental groups, and others. We plan to solicit their comments on the legislative text. A copy of the discussion draft and supporting documents will be posted on the Energy Committee Web site--energy.senate.gov. I encourage interested parties to look at that draft and to monitor the Web site for further developments.

Madam President, following all of the other items that I have mentioned to be printed in the Record, I ask unanimous consent that the discussion draft that Senator Specter and I are circulating also be printed in the Record following the other documents.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 7, 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 President's Proposed Budget for FY 2008 for the Department of Energy.

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 Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-3031 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

committee on energy and natural resources

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

The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 15, 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 President's Proposed Budget for FY 2008 for the 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.

For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 0963 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senator Voinovich entitled the ``Health Partnership Act of 2007,'' which along with a companion House bill introduced by Representatives Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, and Tom Price, intends to set us on a path toward affordable, quality health care for all Americans. The Health Partnership Act creates partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, private payers, and health care providers to seek innovation in health care systems.

Under this Act, States, local governments, and tribes and tribal governments would be invited to submit applications to the Federal Government for funding to implement expansion and improvements to current health programs for review by a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission.'' Based on funding available through the Federal budget process, the Commission would approve a variety of reform options and innovative approaches.

This federalist approach to health reform would encourage a broad array of reform options subject to monitoring, to determine what is and is not successful. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''

Our bipartisan legislation, the ``Health Partnership Act,'' encourages

this type of State-based innovation and will help the Nation better address both the policy and the politics of health care reform. Currently, we do not have a ``one-size-fits-all'' model of reform, so encouraging States, local governments, and tribes to adopt a variety of approaches will help us better understand what may or may not work.

Inaction on the growing and related problems of the uninsured and increasing health care costs is unacceptable and unconscionable.

In fact, while spending on health care in our country has reached $2 trillion annually, the number of uninsured has increased to nearly 47 million people, seven million more than in 2000. The consequences are staggering, as uninsured citizens get about half the medical care they need compared to those with health insurance and, according to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance.

While gridlock continues to permeate Washington, DC, in regards to this issue, a number of States and local governments are moving ahead with health reform. The ``Health Partnership Act'' would provide support, in the form of grants, to States, groups of States, local governments, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies intended to reduce the number of uninsured, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care.

Responding to urgent needs, State and local governments have not been able to wait for Federal action. We observed this in the early 1990s as States such as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington led the way to expanding coverage to children through the enactment of a variety of health reforms. Evaluation proved that some of these programs worked better than others, so the Federal Government took note and responded in 1997 with passage of the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program'' or SCHIP. This legislation, built upon experiences of the States, enjoyed broad bipartisan support. SCHIP is a popular and successful State-based model that covers millions of children and continues to have broad-based bipartisan support across this Nation.

So, why not use that successful model and build upon it? In fact, State and local governments are already taking up that challenge and the Federal Government should, through the enactment of the ``Health Partnership Act,'' do what it can to be helpful with those efforts. For example--

On November 15, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law the ``Covering All Kids Health Insurance Act'' which, beginning in July 2006, intended to make insurance coverage available to all uninsured children.

In April, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law legislation that requires all Bay State residents to have health insurance. Their State experiment involves partnerships between the State Medicaid, employer groups, and insurance companies.

Now California's Governor Schwarzenegger proposes health reform to include health promotion and wellness services for all, insurance coverage, and cost containment measures.

Other States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York have enacted other health reforms that have had mixed success.

All of these efforts add importantly to our knowledge base, and can then lead to a national solution to our uninsured and affordability crisis. We can learn from each and every one of these efforts, including those which failed.

Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said it well by noting that State-based reforms, such as that passed in Massachusetts, are very good news. As she notes, ``First, any substantive effort to expand access to coverage is worthwhile, given the growing number of uninsured in this country and the large body of evidence showing the dangerous health implications of lacking coverage.''

She adds, ``But something more important is at work here. While we urgently need a national solution so that all Americans have insurance, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting one at the Federal level any time soon. So what Massachusetts has done potentially holds lessons for every State.'' I would add that it holds lessons for the Federal Government as well and not just for the mechanics of implementing health reform policy but also to the politics of health reform.

As she concludes, ``One particularly cogent lesson is the manner in which the measure was crafted--via a civil process that successfully brought together numerous players from across the political business, health care delivery, and policy sectors.''

Senator Voinovich and I have worked together and reached out to like minded colleagues in the House of Representatives via a process much like that described by Karen Davis. The legislation stems from past legislative efforts by Senators such as Bob Graham, Mark Hatfield, and Paul Wellstone, but also from work across ideological lines by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation.

The legislation also benefits from advice and support from health care providers. Dr. Tim Garson who, as Dean of the University of Virginia, brought a much needed provider perspective, ensuring support from the House of Medicine. Supporters include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, American Gastroenterological Association, the Visiting Nurses Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and from state-based health providers such as the New Mexico Medical Society and Ohio Association of Community Health Centers.

The Health Partnership Act supports providers.

The Health Partnership Act received much comment and support from consumer-based groups advocating for national health reform, including that by Dr. Ken Frisof of the Universal Health Care Action Network, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and from numerous health care advocates in New Mexico, including Community Action New Mexico, Health Action New Mexico, Health Care for All Campaign of New Mexico, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, New Mexico Health Choices Initiative, New Mexico POZ Coalition, New Mexico Public Health Association, New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, New Mexico Progressive Alliance for Community Empowerment, and the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign, which includes 115 State-based organizations.

The Health Partnership Act supports consumers.

Support from stakeholders throughout our Nation's health care system has been sought and I would like to thank the many organizations from New Mexico for their support and input to this legislation. There is great urgency in New Mexico because our State, like all of those along the U.S.-Mexico border, faces a severe health care crisis. Over one in five New Mexicans does not have insurance coverage. In fact, only one State, Texas, has more uninsured. New Mexico is also the only State in the country with greater than half of its population covered by State or federally funded health programs.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 41 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

Because so few New Mexicans have employer-based health insurance, the State of New Mexico has enacted its own health reform plan called the State Coverage Initiative, or SCI, in July 2005. SCI is a public/ private partnership intended to expand employer-sponsored insurance, developed in part with grant funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As of December 2006, there were 4,256 people covered by this initiative and there are efforts to expand this effort to cover over 20,000 individuals. With Federal support for my State, the hope would be to further expand coverage to as many New Mexicans as possible.

The Health Partnership Act encourages reforms at both the state and local levels of government. Senator Voinovich, as former mayor of Cleveland, suggested language that would capture community-based efforts as well. Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, and

Oregon have all initiated efforts at the local level for reform, including so-called ``three-share'' programs in Illinois and Michigan. Under these initiatives, employers, employees, and the community each pick up about one-third of the cost of programs.

Jeaneane Smith, deputy administrator in the Office of Oregon Health Policy and Research was recently quoted by an Academy Health publication stating, ``In recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to consider both state- and community-level approaches to improved access. We want to learn how best to support communities as they play an integral part in addressing the gaps in coverage.''

The Health Partnership Act supports communities.

Our hope is to spawn innovation. Brookings Institution senior health fellow Henry Aaron and Heritage Foundation vice president Stuart Butler wrote a Health Affairs article in March 2004 that lays out the foundation for this legislative effort. They argue that while we remain unable to reconcile how best to expand coverage at the Federal level, we can agree to support states in their efforts to try widely differing solutions to health coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. As they write, ``this approach offers both a way to improve knowledge about how to reform health care and a practical way to initiate a process of reform. Such a pluralist approach respects the real, abiding differences in politics, preferences, traditions, and institutions across the nation. It also implies a willingness to accept differences over an extended period in order to make progress. And it recognizes that permitting wide diversity can foster consensus by revealing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of rival approaches.''

In addition to Dr. Garson, Mr. Aaron, Mr. Butler, and Dr. Frisof, I would like to express my appreciation to Dan Hawkins at the National Association of Community Health Centers, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and both Jack Meyer and Stan Dorn at ESRI for their counsel and guidance on health reform and this legislation.

I would also like to commend the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership on the issue of the uninsured and for their willingness to support a variety of efforts to expand health coverage. ACP has been a longstanding advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the Nation.''

And finally, I would also thank the many people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on their forethought and knowledge on all the issues confronting the uninsured. Their efforts to continue the dialogue on the uninsured has successfully kept the issue alive for many years.

I urge my colleagues to break the gridlock and support this legislation, which offers financial support to states, communities, providers, and consumers, as they adopt important innovations in healthcare coverage and expansion.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senator Voinovich entitled the ``Health Partnership Act of 2007,'' which along with a companion House bill introduced by Representatives Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney, and Tom Price, intends to set us on a path toward affordable, quality health care for all Americans. The Health Partnership Act creates partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, tribes and tribal organizations, private payers, and health care providers to seek innovation in health care systems.

Under this Act, States, local governments, and tribes and tribal governments would be invited to submit applications to the Federal Government for funding to implement expansion and improvements to current health programs for review by a bipartisan ``State Health Innovation Commission.'' Based on funding available through the Federal budget process, the Commission would approve a variety of reform options and innovative approaches.

This federalist approach to health reform would encourage a broad array of reform options subject to monitoring, to determine what is and is not successful. As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, ``It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''

Our bipartisan legislation, the ``Health Partnership Act,'' encourages

this type of State-based innovation and will help the Nation better address both the policy and the politics of health care reform. Currently, we do not have a ``one-size-fits-all'' model of reform, so encouraging States, local governments, and tribes to adopt a variety of approaches will help us better understand what may or may not work.

Inaction on the growing and related problems of the uninsured and increasing health care costs is unacceptable and unconscionable.

In fact, while spending on health care in our country has reached $2 trillion annually, the number of uninsured has increased to nearly 47 million people, seven million more than in 2000. The consequences are staggering, as uninsured citizens get about half the medical care they need compared to those with health insurance and, according to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year in the U.S. because of lack of health insurance.

While gridlock continues to permeate Washington, DC, in regards to this issue, a number of States and local governments are moving ahead with health reform. The ``Health Partnership Act'' would provide support, in the form of grants, to States, groups of States, local governments, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations to carry out any of a broad range of strategies intended to reduce the number of uninsured, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care.

Responding to urgent needs, State and local governments have not been able to wait for Federal action. We observed this in the early 1990s as States such as New Mexico, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington led the way to expanding coverage to children through the enactment of a variety of health reforms. Evaluation proved that some of these programs worked better than others, so the Federal Government took note and responded in 1997 with passage of the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program'' or SCHIP. This legislation, built upon experiences of the States, enjoyed broad bipartisan support. SCHIP is a popular and successful State-based model that covers millions of children and continues to have broad-based bipartisan support across this Nation.

So, why not use that successful model and build upon it? In fact, State and local governments are already taking up that challenge and the Federal Government should, through the enactment of the ``Health Partnership Act,'' do what it can to be helpful with those efforts. For example--

On November 15, 2005, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed into law the ``Covering All Kids Health Insurance Act'' which, beginning in July 2006, intended to make insurance coverage available to all uninsured children.

In April, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law legislation that requires all Bay State residents to have health insurance. Their State experiment involves partnerships between the State Medicaid, employer groups, and insurance companies.

Now California's Governor Schwarzenegger proposes health reform to include health promotion and wellness services for all, insurance coverage, and cost containment measures.

Other States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and New York have enacted other health reforms that have had mixed success.

All of these efforts add importantly to our knowledge base, and can then lead to a national solution to our uninsured and affordability crisis. We can learn from each and every one of these efforts, including those which failed.

Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis said it well by noting that State-based reforms, such as that passed in Massachusetts, are very good news. As she notes, ``First, any substantive effort to expand access to coverage is worthwhile, given the growing number of uninsured in this country and the large body of evidence showing the dangerous health implications of lacking coverage.''

She adds, ``But something more important is at work here. While we urgently need a national solution so that all Americans have insurance, it doesn't appear that we'll be getting one at the Federal level any time soon. So what Massachusetts has done potentially holds lessons for every State.'' I would add that it holds lessons for the Federal Government as well and not just for the mechanics of implementing health reform policy but also to the politics of health reform.

As she concludes, ``One particularly cogent lesson is the manner in which the measure was crafted--via a civil process that successfully brought together numerous players from across the political business, health care delivery, and policy sectors.''

Senator Voinovich and I have worked together and reached out to like minded colleagues in the House of Representatives via a process much like that described by Karen Davis. The legislation stems from past legislative efforts by Senators such as Bob Graham, Mark Hatfield, and Paul Wellstone, but also from work across ideological lines by Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution and Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation.

The legislation also benefits from advice and support from health care providers. Dr. Tim Garson who, as Dean of the University of Virginia, brought a much needed provider perspective, ensuring support from the House of Medicine. Supporters include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Cardiology, American Gastroenterological Association, the Visiting Nurses Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and from state-based health providers such as the New Mexico Medical Society and Ohio Association of Community Health Centers.

The Health Partnership Act supports providers.

The Health Partnership Act received much comment and support from consumer-based groups advocating for national health reform, including that by Dr. Ken Frisof of the Universal Health Care Action Network, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and from numerous health care advocates in New Mexico, including Community Action New Mexico, Health Action New Mexico, Health Care for All Campaign of New Mexico, New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, New Mexico Health Choices Initiative, New Mexico POZ Coalition, New Mexico Public Health Association, New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, New Mexico Progressive Alliance for Community Empowerment, and the Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign, which includes 115 State-based organizations.

The Health Partnership Act supports consumers.

Support from stakeholders throughout our Nation's health care system has been sought and I would like to thank the many organizations from New Mexico for their support and input to this legislation. There is great urgency in New Mexico because our State, like all of those along the U.S.-Mexico border, faces a severe health care crisis. Over one in five New Mexicans does not have insurance coverage. In fact, only one State, Texas, has more uninsured. New Mexico is also the only State in the country with greater than half of its population covered by State or federally funded health programs.

A rather shocking statistic, which also continues to worsen, is that one out of every three Hispanic citizens are uninsured. In fact, less than 41 percent of the Hispanic population now has employer-based coverage nationwide, which is in sharp comparison to the 66 percent of non-Hispanic whites who have employer-based coverage.

Because so few New Mexicans have employer-based health insurance, the State of New Mexico has enacted its own health reform plan called the State Coverage Initiative, or SCI, in July 2005. SCI is a public/ private partnership intended to expand employer-sponsored insurance, developed in part with grant funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As of December 2006, there were 4,256 people covered by this initiative and there are efforts to expand this effort to cover over 20,000 individuals. With Federal support for my State, the hope would be to further expand coverage to as many New Mexicans as possible.

The Health Partnership Act encourages reforms at both the state and local levels of government. Senator Voinovich, as former mayor of Cleveland, suggested language that would capture community-based efforts as well. Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, and

Oregon have all initiated efforts at the local level for reform, including so-called ``three-share'' programs in Illinois and Michigan. Under these initiatives, employers, employees, and the community each pick up about one-third of the cost of programs.

Jeaneane Smith, deputy administrator in the Office of Oregon Health Policy and Research was recently quoted by an Academy Health publication stating, ``In recent years it has become apparent that there is a need to consider both state- and community-level approaches to improved access. We want to learn how best to support communities as they play an integral part in addressing the gaps in coverage.''

The Health Partnership Act supports communities.

Our hope is to spawn innovation. Brookings Institution senior health fellow Henry Aaron and Heritage Foundation vice president Stuart Butler wrote a Health Affairs article in March 2004 that lays out the foundation for this legislative effort. They argue that while we remain unable to reconcile how best to expand coverage at the Federal level, we can agree to support states in their efforts to try widely differing solutions to health coverage, cost containment, and quality improvement. As they write, ``this approach offers both a way to improve knowledge about how to reform health care and a practical way to initiate a process of reform. Such a pluralist approach respects the real, abiding differences in politics, preferences, traditions, and institutions across the nation. It also implies a willingness to accept differences over an extended period in order to make progress. And it recognizes that permitting wide diversity can foster consensus by revealing the strengths and exposing the weaknesses of rival approaches.''

In addition to Dr. Garson, Mr. Aaron, Mr. Butler, and Dr. Frisof, I would like to express my appreciation to Dan Hawkins at the National Association of Community Health Centers, Bill Vaughan at Consumers Union, and both Jack Meyer and Stan Dorn at ESRI for their counsel and guidance on health reform and this legislation.

I would also like to commend the American College of Physicians, or ACP, for their outstanding leadership on the issue of the uninsured and for their willingness to support a variety of efforts to expand health coverage. ACP has been a longstanding advocate for expanding health coverage and has authored landmark reports on the important role that health insurance has in reducing people's morbidity and mortality. In fact, to cite the conclusion of one of those studies, ``Lack of insurance contributes to the endangerment of the health of each uninsured American as well as the collective health of the Nation.''

And finally, I would also thank the many people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on their forethought and knowledge on all the issues confronting the uninsured. Their efforts to continue the dialogue on the uninsured has successfully kept the issue alive for many years.

I urge my colleagues to break the gridlock and support this legislation, which offers financial support to states, communities, providers, and consumers, as they adopt important innovations in healthcare coverage and expansion.

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

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

The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

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 Patty Beneke at (202) 224- 5451 or David Marks at (202) 224-8046.

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

The hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on analysis recently completed by the Energy Information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of a Proposal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity with a Cap and Trade 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 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 Jonathan Black (202) 224-6722 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the status of Federal land management agencies' efforts to contain the costs of their wildfire suppression activities and to consider recent independent reviews of and recommendations for those efforts.

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

For further information, please contact Scott Miller at 202-224-5488 or Amanda Kelly at 202-224-6836.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to labor, immigration, law enforcement, and economic conditions in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana islands.

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

For further information, please contact Al Stayman (202) 224-7865 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Pete Domenici, on the introduction of two bills regarding the insular areas affiliated with the United States. The text of both of these bills is identical to the text of bills that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 29, 2006.

The first bill, ``To Repeal Certain Sections of the Act of May 26, 1936 Pertaining to the Virgin Islands,'' would repeal sections of a 1936 law governing local U.S. Virgin Islands tax policy that were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1952. That year, Congress enacted the Virgin Islands Organic Act to establish local self- government and to delegate certain local functions, including the development and administration of local property taxes, to a newly established local government. Notwithstanding this intent, in 2004, a Federal court ruled that these sections of the Act of 1936 are still in effect.

The text of the bill introduced today is identical to S. 1829, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-236.

The second bill being introduced today, ``To Amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and For Other Purposes,'' would make several relatively minor, clarifying, and technical changes to Public Law 108-188 which approved the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, and the Compact between the U.S. and Micronesia. The text of this bill is identical to S. 1830, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-237.

Although relatively small and remote, the U.S.-affiliated insular areas are the home for many U.S. citizens, or for communities with which our Nation has special historical and political relationships. Maintaining and strengthening these relationships is a particular concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the territories and freely associated states. It is unfortunate that, last year, Senate passage of these bills was delayed leaving insufficient time for enactment. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the Senate on their prompt consideration this session, and to their enactment as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, and the Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Pete Domenici, on the introduction of two bills regarding the insular areas affiliated with the United States. The text of both of these bills is identical to the text of bills that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on September 29, 2006.

The first bill, ``To Repeal Certain Sections of the Act of May 26, 1936 Pertaining to the Virgin Islands,'' would repeal sections of a 1936 law governing local U.S. Virgin Islands tax policy that were thought to have been effectively repealed in 1952. That year, Congress enacted the Virgin Islands Organic Act to establish local self- government and to delegate certain local functions, including the development and administration of local property taxes, to a newly established local government. Notwithstanding this intent, in 2004, a Federal court ruled that these sections of the Act of 1936 are still in effect.

The text of the bill introduced today is identical to S. 1829, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-236.

The second bill being introduced today, ``To Amend the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, and For Other Purposes,'' would make several relatively minor, clarifying, and technical changes to Public Law 108-188 which approved the Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the Marshall Islands, and the Compact between the U.S. and Micronesia. The text of this bill is identical to S. 1830, as passed by the Senate four months ago. A hearing was held on that bill on October 25, 2005, and it was reported from the Committee on April 20, 2006. Details on the background, purpose, and need for this legislation is available in Senate Hearing 109-291, and in Senate Report 109-237.

Although relatively small and remote, the U.S.-affiliated insular areas are the home for many U.S. citizens, or for communities with which our Nation has special historical and political relationships. Maintaining and strengthening these relationships is a particular concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the territories and freely associated states. It is unfortunate that, last year, Senate passage of these bills was delayed leaving insufficient time for enactment. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and the Senate on their prompt consideration this session, and to their enactment as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007.

Unfortunately, when Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, tribes were unintentionally left out as eligible applicants in some of the newly-authorized grant programs. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Reid, Baucus, Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold, Cantwell, and Murray, would simply ensure that tribes are able to apply for these funds and give Native American communities the resources they need to fight scourge of methamphetamine use.

The recently-enacted Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 authorized new funding for three grant programs. The Act authorized $99 million in new funding for the COPS Hot Spots program, which helps local law enforcement agencies obtain the tools they need to reduce the production, distribution, and use of meth. Funding may also be used to clean up meth labs, support health and environmental agencies, and to purchase equipment and support systems.

The Act also authorized $20 million for a Drug-Endangered Children grant program to provide comprehensive services to assist children who live in a home in which meth has been used, manufactured, or sold. Under this program, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, child protective services, social services, and health care services, work together to ensure that these children get the help they need.

In addition, the Combat Meth Act authorized grants to be made to address the use of meth among pregnant and parenting women offenders. The Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program is aimed at facilitating collaboration between the criminal justice, child welfare, and State substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant women and those with dependent children.

Although Tribes are eligible applicants under the Pregnant and Parenting Offenders program, they were not included as eligible applicants under either the Hot Spots program or the Drug-Endangered Children program. I see no reason why tribes should not be able to access all of these funds.

Meth use has had a devastating impact in communities throughout the country, and Indian Country is no exception. According to NCAI, Native Americans have the highest meth abuse rate among any ethnic group and 70 percent of law enforcement rate meth as their greatest challenge-- indeed, a FBI survey found that an estimated 40 percent of violent crime in Indian Country was related to meth use. And last year there was an article in the Gallup Independent newspaper about a Navajo grandmother, her daughter, and granddaughter, who were all arrested for selling meth. There was also a one-year-old child in the home when police executed the arrest warrant. It is absolutely disheartening to hear about cases such as this, with three generations of a family destroyed by meth.

I strongly believe that we need to do everything we can to assist communities as they struggle to deal with the consequences of meth, and ensuring that Native American communities are able to access these funds is an important first step. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to reintroduce today with Senator Domenici a bill we introduced last Congress. The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act would protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in my State. The bill would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of this remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils. The Energy Committee held a hearing last year where the Bureau of Land Management testified in support; in addition the bill has the support of the local community. I appreciate Senator Domenici's support on this measure and hope that with the progress we made last Congress we can look forward to moving the bill quickly through the Senate this year.

The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied.

Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones.

Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in creating legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its scientific value. In 1994, scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution completed their study and documented the significant scientific value of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites. Because of this, the Robledo tracks allow a wide range of scientific problems regarding late Paleozoic tracks to be solved that could not be solved before.'' This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources.

In addition to permanently protecting the fossils for the scientific community the bill would make it a priority that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient earth.

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

Mr. President, I'm pleased to reintroduce today with Senator Domenici a bill we introduced last Congress. The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act would protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in my State. The bill would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of this remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils. The Energy Committee held a hearing last year where the Bureau of Land Management testified in support; in addition the bill has the support of the local community. I appreciate Senator Domenici's support on this measure and hope that with the progress we made last Congress we can look forward to moving the bill quickly through the Senate this year.

The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied.

Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones.

Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in creating legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its scientific value. In 1994, scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution completed their study and documented the significant scientific value of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites. Because of this, the Robledo tracks allow a wide range of scientific problems regarding late Paleozoic tracks to be solved that could not be solved before.'' This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources.

In addition to permanently protecting the fossils for the scientific community the bill would make it a priority that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient earth.

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 full committee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on January 18, 2007, at 9:30 in SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on issues relating to oil and gas royalty management at the 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.

For further information, please contact Patty Beneke at 202-224-5451 or David Marks at (202) 224-8046.

Mr. President, I wish to inform the Senate and the Public that the committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the global oil balance and its implications for U.S. economic and national security.