Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today because there are far too many women in America suffering in silence from postpartum depression and it is time to let them know that they are not alone. It is time to lift the veil of shame and secrecy--this condition is not their fault and they can get help.

The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act would establish the first comprehensive legislation to assist new mothers suffering from postpartum depression and educate women about this disabling condition that affects 800,000 women each year.

It would help provide support services to women suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis and would also help educate mothers and their families about these conditions.

In addition, it would support research into the causes, diagnoses and treatments for postpartum depression and psychosis.

It attacks postpartum depression on all fronts with education, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone.

We know--doctors and psychologists know--that there are all too many mothers in need who are suffering in silence. All too many mothers are unaware of the condition and go without the treatment and support they so desperately need.

I introduced this bill because I was inspired by the story of Mrs. Mary Jo Codey--the former first lady of New Jersey--who publically shared her struggle with postpartum depression. It was her courage and strength that helped change New Jersey law--and now, hopefully, will help change our Nation's laws.

But postpartum depression affects women all over this country, not just in my home State, and that is why I was proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Durbin and work with the support of Senator Kennedy. I saw the companion legislation of Representative Rush sail through the House--passing 382-3--and we were all set to pass this bill when one singular Senator signaled his objection, essentially blocked the bill, and the whole process ground to a halt.

One Senator's objections and American women are left without relief and support from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition affecting as many as one in five new mothers experiencing symptoms.

One Senator's objections, and American women are left without this strong program to make sure they no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

One Senator's objections, and American women are left with few places to turn when they show signs of depression, lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming the baby or themselves.

Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.

We were on our way to taking those steps when a single Senator stepped in and blocked it from happening.

For the millions of American women who have suffered or soon will suffer from postpartum depression we need to pass this bill today.

I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged of S. 1375 and that the Senate immediately proceed to S. 1375; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and that an amendment at the desk consisting of the text of subtitle (d) of title I of S. 3297 be inserted in lieu thereof; that the amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I assume my distinguished colleague from Idaho is objecting on behalf of Senator Coburn, and I understand if that is the case.

I have a problem in that we have a process that has festered where one person suddenly believes that they are the guardian of what is good and what is not. I always get concerned when suddenly one person in an institution believes they can use the powers that are reserved largely for the purposes of ensuring that something they feel so passionate about or so strongly about and to protect the powers of the minority can be preserved, but then it get abused and hundreds of pieces of legislation get stopped by one Senator.

Now, I intend to continue to push this because I want mothers throughout this country to understand who is blocking their way from having the type of access and help that is necessary to be able to ensure that, in fact, they do not have to go through these depressions alone.

We have many stories across the landscape of the country of mothers who did not know they were having post partum depression, and the consequences were that they thought about hurting their children and hurting themselves. We can do far better.

When the House of Representatives passed this very same bill, and we changed it to accommodate our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the HELP Committee, but passed it 382 to 3--382 to 3--the reality is, something is wrong when one Senator believes he or she can stop the progress on behalf of millions of women in this country.

I am going to come to the floor of the Senate time and time again. I want American women to know who is the impediment to the opportunity for them to get the help they need. I want mothers to know who is the impediment to get the help they need. I want families to know who is the impediment to get the help they need. I want husbands to know who is the impediment to have their spouses get the help they need, and that is one Senator--one Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the chair following the remarks of Senator Craig.

Mr. President, I had another statement, but I see Senator Craig is here. Even though I know he objected to my request on behalf of someone else, I am going to yield the floor and come back at a later time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571.

Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic collaboration across Federal agencies. We should have confidence that policies and programs from one office support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's structure.

For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and healthy eating, as they should be?

I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health.

Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local environments wisely.

Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss opportunities to get it right.

Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of facilities and other unwanted health consequences.

However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased.

Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to cost $128 per person per year.

So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical activity is a good investment.

We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure.

We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 percent higher than the 10 least sprawling.

We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and preserve habitats and biodiversity of species.

We can improve social connectedness by how we design our environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and time for family members to spend together or involved in their communities.

My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in this country, although they have been successfully used for years in Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health.

Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants.

My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and transportation policy and plans.

I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's Health for their help and support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571.

Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic collaboration across Federal agencies. We should have confidence that policies and programs from one office support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's structure.

For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and healthy eating, as they should be?

I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health.

Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local environments wisely.

Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss opportunities to get it right.

Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of facilities and other unwanted health consequences.

However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased.

Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to cost $128 per person per year.

So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical activity is a good investment.

We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure.

We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 percent higher than the 10 least sprawling.

We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and preserve habitats and biodiversity of species.

We can improve social connectedness by how we design our environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and time for family members to spend together or involved in their communities.

My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in this country, although they have been successfully used for years in Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health.

Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants.

My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and transportation policy and plans.

I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's Health for their help and support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor Anthony J. Harding for his leadership, integrity, and many accomplishments at United Water, one of the Nation's largest private water companies. During the past 5 years, Tony has been the chief executive officer of United Water, and he was responsible for the success of the company's water and wastewater operations of both regulated and nonregulated businesses. Last month, Tony was named chairman of the board at United Water, a subsidiary of Paris-based Suez Environment.

Tony has over 35 years of experience in engineering and operations including management of major water businesses in Europe and Asia. Prior to joining United Water, he was president of Suez Environment in the Asia Pacific Region, with overall responsibility for water operations in the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Australia, and New Zealand. He also enjoyed a long and distinguished career managing water operations for two of England's most prestigious water companies: Essex and Suffolk Water Plc. and Northumbrian Water Plc.

In 2003, Tony was named chief executive officer at United Water and he immediately made an impressive impact in the United States water services industry, making the company the respected and sought-after institution it is today. As CEO, Tony has made great strides in improving the water services to people in cities and towns across the country. As a result of his remarkable skills, United Water now provides water services to customers in the 48 continental States as opposed to 21 States when Tony took over as CEO.

In 2005 Tony worked with then-Governor Kempthorne of Idaho to install high-tech membrane water filtration technology at a brandnew water treatment plant in Boise. In 2006 he worked with Pennsylvania Congressman Tim Holden to bring similar technology to the people in the Harrisburg community. In 2007, Tony launched an aggressive $110 million project in northern New Jersey, utilizing the latest water filtration technology to improve water quality for nearly 1 million residents in the State.

Additionally, Tony has provided his wealth of experience to the National Association of Water Companies and the American Water Works Association. He is also on the board of directors for the United Way in northern New Jersey. Dedicated to both his community and his family, Tony and his wife, Christine, have two daughters, Rhyan and Bethan.

Tony received his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Glamorgan in Wales. He was also a contributing author to the textbook ``Instrumentation and Computer Integration in Water Utility Operations,'' a joint project between the American and Japanese Water Associations.

There is no doubt that Anthony J. Harding exhibits all the qualities of an exemplary leader who has greatly impacted this Nation's water and wastewater industry. Therefore, I am pleased to pay tribute to Anthony J. Harding and know my colleagues will join in wishing him continued success.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to introduce legislation intended to bring much needed reform to the Minerals Management Service. After recent reports of the widespread corruption at the agency, I came together with my colleague Senator Nelson from Florida to work on legislative solutions that will address the complete and total lack of ethics at this agency. I would also like to take this time to thank Senator Nelson for his outstanding work on this bill. I know there are few people out there that show as much dedication and clear vision on this issue as he does.

The cries of Drill! Drill! Drill! have reached a fevered pitch and proponents of drilling say that a profitable relationship between the Government and the oil industry will benefit everyone involved.

However, as we have recently learned from reports released by the Department of Interior Inspector General's Office, the influence of Big Oil corrupts absolutely. Honestly, we have been learning that lesson over and over again since we sent an oil man to the White House. The influence of Big Oil has led us to make policy decisions that are diametrically opposed to the best interests of this country. With barrels of Big Oil lobbying money, this administration has led us all head first into policies that benefit Big Oil and almost no one else. We are more addicted to oil than ever before and we continue with this addiction to the detriment of our economy, our energy infrastructure, our environment, and even our national security.

Once Big Oil is involved, it is as if all reason flies out the window. Nowhere has this become clearer than at the Minerals Management Service. The most recent reports from the Inspector General's office describe corruption at MMS on a level difficult to believe. The descriptions of drug use and sexual activity between oil company representatives and MMS employees are not suitable for network television, much less the floor of the United States Senate. This is the agency tasked with leasing Federal lands to oil companies and ensuring the adequate compensation of such leasing and yet their employees behaved like oil company lackeys with complete disregard for the interests of the American taxpayer.

I am sure no one is surprised by the increased influence of the oil industry since we elected a former oil man to the White House, but this is truly beyond the pale. The Inspector General's report concludes that MMS is plagued by ``a culture of ethical failure.'' This is an agency where conflict of interest is not only the norm, but where officials do not think the rules even apply to them. This is an agency with a complete free-for-all atmosphere where employees go on golf and ski outings, concerts, and sporting events all paid for by oil executives. This is an agency whose culture is ``devoid of both ethical standards and internal controls'' where officials are LITERALLY and figuratively in bed with industry.

This is the agency that we want to trust with our shorelines. This is the agency we want to trust to lease thousands of miles of our beaches to the oil industry and then collect compensation for use of that public land--OUR LAND--with oil and gas. The Government Accountability Office has already released reports that concluded that MMS has no idea if they are collecting the right amount of oil through the Royalty-in- Kind program. Not only that, but the agency has refused to institute the reforms recommended by GAO in order to collect the correct amount of compensation from the oil industry. Of course, considering the Inspector General's report, their lack of reform is not surprising as they were too busy living the high life on the oil industry's dime.

This agency is clearly in desperate need of regulation. If the officials at MMS believe that the rules do not apply to them, then clearly we need tougher rules. That is why I rise today with my colleague Senator Nelson from Florida to introduce legislation that will dramatically toughen the ethics rules for employees at the Minerals Management Service.

First, this legislation holds MMS employees to the same standards as federal procurement officials and addresses the revolving door between the agency and industry. There would be a one year ban on agency employees taking any private sector job for companies the employee worked with while a federal employee. This means ANY job, not just ``representational activities'' such as lobbying. Any real first crack at reform has to be stopping this revolving door.

Second, this legislation requires that MMS employees divest all industry investments before working at MMS. Currently, the law only requires that employees recuse themselves from working on a matter specifically having to do with a particular company in which they have a financial stake. Needless to say, trusting MMS employees who believe the rules do not apply to them and that the agency is here to serve the needs of industry seems unrealistic at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Third, we would increase the number of MMS employees required to file public financial disclosure forms and forms revealing past employment. Those who earn incomes at the base level of a G-13 employee or higher will now have to reveal this information.

Currently, only employees compensated at 120 percent of GS15 level or more must disclose. However, as this report makes clear, the extreme influence of industry on the agency means that employees beyond merely the top officials need to be held to a higher standard of objectivity.

Of course, as I mentioned, the issues at MMS do not end with the ethical standards, or lack thereof, among agency employees. The Royalty-In-Kind Program is broken and the Federal Government is not being compensated for the leasing of land to the oil industry. This program is part of the second largest source of revenue for the Federal Government, yet it currently operates on what basically amounts to an honor system. We are supposed to trust the oil companies to pay the right amount and for the employees to see that the Government receives compensation.

Therefore, our legislation would suspend the Royalty-In-Kind program until the following conditions are met. First, the MMS must conduct a comprehensive review to determine if it has been accurately collecting royalties and report its finding to Congress. We all know the oil industry is flush with cash, so there is absolutely no excuse for them to use OUR LAND to make a profit and not pay for it.

Second, the MMS must conduct a thorough review to ensure that metering equipment properly measure what royalties are owed to the Federal Government and report those findings to Congress. In addition, they will be required to perform no less than 550 audits of oil and gas leases each fiscal year to assure adequate royalties are being collected. There needs to be a real process in place to ensure adequate compensation.

Third, they must also have a robust training program for their employees ending with a signed certification that MMS employees understand ethics laws and regulations. It needs to be abundantly clear to all agency employees and officials that no matter who is in the White House the rules most definitely apply to them.

Last, the MMS must create a position for an ombudsman that will monitor the agency's progress in carrying out all these reforms. This ombudsman must be hired by and report exclusively to the Department of Interior Inspector General's office because there must be an objective outside source to protect us from this type of corruption happening again. The Inspector General will also be tasked with determining whether the Royalty-In-Kind program is even saving the taxpayers money at all.

Clearly, some type of reform at MMS is desperately needed. I believe the bill Senator Nelson and I are introducing will go a long way towards addressing these concerns. No matter what, I do not see how we can in good conscience open up thousands of miles of our precious coastlines to the oil industry without being able to trust the agency tasked with protecting our interests.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to introduce legislation intended to bring much needed reform to the Minerals Management Service. After recent reports of the widespread corruption at the agency, I came together with my colleague Senator Nelson from Florida to work on legislative solutions that will address the complete and total lack of ethics at this agency. I would also like to take this time to thank Senator Nelson for his outstanding work on this bill. I know there are few people out there that show as much dedication and clear vision on this issue as he does.

The cries of Drill! Drill! Drill! have reached a fevered pitch and proponents of drilling say that a profitable relationship between the Government and the oil industry will benefit everyone involved.

However, as we have recently learned from reports released by the Department of Interior Inspector General's Office, the influence of Big Oil corrupts absolutely. Honestly, we have been learning that lesson over and over again since we sent an oil man to the White House. The influence of Big Oil has led us to make policy decisions that are diametrically opposed to the best interests of this country. With barrels of Big Oil lobbying money, this administration has led us all head first into policies that benefit Big Oil and almost no one else. We are more addicted to oil than ever before and we continue with this addiction to the detriment of our economy, our energy infrastructure, our environment, and even our national security.

Once Big Oil is involved, it is as if all reason flies out the window. Nowhere has this become clearer than at the Minerals Management Service. The most recent reports from the Inspector General's office describe corruption at MMS on a level difficult to believe. The descriptions of drug use and sexual activity between oil company representatives and MMS employees are not suitable for network television, much less the floor of the United States Senate. This is the agency tasked with leasing Federal lands to oil companies and ensuring the adequate compensation of such leasing and yet their employees behaved like oil company lackeys with complete disregard for the interests of the American taxpayer.

I am sure no one is surprised by the increased influence of the oil industry since we elected a former oil man to the White House, but this is truly beyond the pale. The Inspector General's report concludes that MMS is plagued by ``a culture of ethical failure.'' This is an agency where conflict of interest is not only the norm, but where officials do not think the rules even apply to them. This is an agency with a complete free-for-all atmosphere where employees go on golf and ski outings, concerts, and sporting events all paid for by oil executives. This is an agency whose culture is ``devoid of both ethical standards and internal controls'' where officials are LITERALLY and figuratively in bed with industry.

This is the agency that we want to trust with our shorelines. This is the agency we want to trust to lease thousands of miles of our beaches to the oil industry and then collect compensation for use of that public land--OUR LAND--with oil and gas. The Government Accountability Office has already released reports that concluded that MMS has no idea if they are collecting the right amount of oil through the Royalty-in- Kind program. Not only that, but the agency has refused to institute the reforms recommended by GAO in order to collect the correct amount of compensation from the oil industry. Of course, considering the Inspector General's report, their lack of reform is not surprising as they were too busy living the high life on the oil industry's dime.

This agency is clearly in desperate need of regulation. If the officials at MMS believe that the rules do not apply to them, then clearly we need tougher rules. That is why I rise today with my colleague Senator Nelson from Florida to introduce legislation that will dramatically toughen the ethics rules for employees at the Minerals Management Service.

First, this legislation holds MMS employees to the same standards as federal procurement officials and addresses the revolving door between the agency and industry. There would be a one year ban on agency employees taking any private sector job for companies the employee worked with while a federal employee. This means ANY job, not just ``representational activities'' such as lobbying. Any real first crack at reform has to be stopping this revolving door.

Second, this legislation requires that MMS employees divest all industry investments before working at MMS. Currently, the law only requires that employees recuse themselves from working on a matter specifically having to do with a particular company in which they have a financial stake. Needless to say, trusting MMS employees who believe the rules do not apply to them and that the agency is here to serve the needs of industry seems unrealistic at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Third, we would increase the number of MMS employees required to file public financial disclosure forms and forms revealing past employment. Those who earn incomes at the base level of a G-13 employee or higher will now have to reveal this information.

Currently, only employees compensated at 120 percent of GS15 level or more must disclose. However, as this report makes clear, the extreme influence of industry on the agency means that employees beyond merely the top officials need to be held to a higher standard of objectivity.

Of course, as I mentioned, the issues at MMS do not end with the ethical standards, or lack thereof, among agency employees. The Royalty-In-Kind Program is broken and the Federal Government is not being compensated for the leasing of land to the oil industry. This program is part of the second largest source of revenue for the Federal Government, yet it currently operates on what basically amounts to an honor system. We are supposed to trust the oil companies to pay the right amount and for the employees to see that the Government receives compensation.

Therefore, our legislation would suspend the Royalty-In-Kind program until the following conditions are met. First, the MMS must conduct a comprehensive review to determine if it has been accurately collecting royalties and report its finding to Congress. We all know the oil industry is flush with cash, so there is absolutely no excuse for them to use OUR LAND to make a profit and not pay for it.

Second, the MMS must conduct a thorough review to ensure that metering equipment properly measure what royalties are owed to the Federal Government and report those findings to Congress. In addition, they will be required to perform no less than 550 audits of oil and gas leases each fiscal year to assure adequate royalties are being collected. There needs to be a real process in place to ensure adequate compensation.

Third, they must also have a robust training program for their employees ending with a signed certification that MMS employees understand ethics laws and regulations. It needs to be abundantly clear to all agency employees and officials that no matter who is in the White House the rules most definitely apply to them.

Last, the MMS must create a position for an ombudsman that will monitor the agency's progress in carrying out all these reforms. This ombudsman must be hired by and report exclusively to the Department of Interior Inspector General's office because there must be an objective outside source to protect us from this type of corruption happening again. The Inspector General will also be tasked with determining whether the Royalty-In-Kind program is even saving the taxpayers money at all.

Clearly, some type of reform at MMS is desperately needed. I believe the bill Senator Nelson and I are introducing will go a long way towards addressing these concerns. No matter what, I do not see how we can in good conscience open up thousands of miles of our precious coastlines to the oil industry without being able to trust the agency tasked with protecting our interests.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on the Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 12 to 23, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, and that the treaties be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any committee understandings, declarations, or conditions be agreed to as applicable; that any statements be printed in the Record as if read; and that the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be considered as separate votes; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted on, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session with no other motions in order, all without interviewing action or debate.

I ask for a division vote on the resolutions of ratification.

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Amendment to Article 1 of the Convention on Prohibitions or

Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which

May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have

Indiscriminate Effects, adopted at Geneva on December 21,

2001 (Treaty Doc. 109-10(B)), subject to the declaration of

section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing. This Treaty does not confer

private rights enforceable in United States courts.

Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Sweden

on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Treaty between the Government of the United States of America

and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on Mutual Legal

Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Stockholm on

December 17, 2001 (Treaty Doc. 107-12), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance Between the United States of

America and the European Union

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union, signed at

Washington on June 25, 2003, with a related Explanatory Note

(Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of section

2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Austria

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Protocol to the Treaty between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the Republic of

Austria on Mutual Legal Assistance Matters signed February

23, 1995, as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on

Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America

and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, signed at Vienna

on July 20, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the

declaration of section 2,

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Kingdom of Belgium

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the United States of

America and the Kingdom of Belgium on Mutual Legal Assistance

in Criminal Matters signed January 28, 1988, signed at

Brussels on December 16, 2004 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject

to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Republic Of Cyprus

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of the Republic

of Cyprus on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

signed December 20, 1999, signed at Nicosia on January 20,

2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of

section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration;

This Treaty is self-executing.

Supplementary Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Between the United States of America and the Czech Republic

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Supplementary Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal

Matters between the United States of America and the Czech

Republic, signed at Prague on May 16, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-

13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Kingdom of Denmark

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United

States of America as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, signed at Copenhagen on June 23, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-

13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Estonia

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of the Republic

of Estonia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

signed April 2, 1998, signed at Tallinn on February 8, 2006

(Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of section

2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Between the United States of America and

the Republic of Finland

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Treaty on Certain Aspects of Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters between the United States of America and the

Republic of Finland, signed at Brussels on December 16, 2004

(Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of section

2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and France

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3, paragraph 2, of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, as to the application of the Treaty on Mutual Legal

Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States of

America and France signed December 10, 1998, signed at The

Hague on September 30, 2004 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to

the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing:

Supplementary Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance Between the United

States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Supplementary Treaty to the Treaty between the United States

of America and the Federal Republic of Germany on Mutual

Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Washington on

April 18, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Protocol on Mutual Legal Assistance Between the United States of

America and the Hellenic Republic

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Protocol to the Treaty between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the Hellenic Republic

on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed May

26, 1999, as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on

Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of America

and the European Union, signed June 25, 2003, signed at

Washington on January 18, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject

to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Protocol on Mutual Legal Assistance Between the United States of

America and the Republic of Hungary

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Protocol to the Treaty between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the Republic of

Hungary on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed

December 1, 1994, as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, signed at Budapest on November 15, 2005 (Treaty Doc.

109-13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and Ireland

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of Ireland on

Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed January

18, 2001, signed at Dublin on July 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-

13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Italian Republic

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the United States of

America and the Italian Republic on Mutual Assistance in

Criminal Matters signed November 9, 1982, signed at Rome on

May 3, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration

of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Latvia

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Protocol to the Treaty between the Government of the United

States of America and the Government of the Republic of

Latvia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed

at Riga on December 7, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to

the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Protocol Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Lithuania

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein).

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Protocol on the application of the Agreement on Mutual Legal

Assistance between the United States of America and the

European Union to the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of the Republic

of Lithuania on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,

signed at Brussels on June 15, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-13),

subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3, paragraph 2(a) of

the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, as to the application of the Treaty between the

Government of the United States of America and the Government

of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Mutual Legal Assistance

in Criminal Matters signed March 13, 1997, signed at

Washington on February 1, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject

to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Between the United States of America and

Malta

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Treaty on Certain Aspects of Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters between the Government of the United States

of America and the Government of Malta, signed at Valletta on

May 18, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration

of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement Between the United States of America

and the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Agreement comprising the Instrument as contemplated by

Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance

between the United States of America and the European Union

signed at Washington on June 25, 2003, as to the application

of the Treaty between the United States of America and the

Kingdom of the Netherlands on Mutual Assistance in Criminal

Matters signed at The Hague on June 12, 1981, signed at The

Hague on September 29, 2004, with a related exchange of notes

signed the same date (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Poland

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Agreement between the United States of America and the

Republic of Poland on the Application of the Treaty between

the United States of America and the Republic of Poland on

Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed July 10,

1996, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Mutual

Legal Assistance between the United States of America and the

European Union signed at Washington June 25, 2003, signed at

Warsaw on June 9, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Portuguese Republic

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument between the United States of America and the

Portuguese Republic as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, signed at Washington on July 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-

13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Slovak Republic

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument between the United States of America and the

Slovak Republic, as contemplated by Article 3(3) of the

Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed June 25,

2003, signed at Bratislava on February 6, 2006 (Treaty Doc.

109-13), subject to the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement Between the United States of America

and the Republic of Slovenia

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice And Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Agreement between the Government of the United States of

America and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia

comprising the Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(3) of

the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United

States of America and the European Union signed at Washington

on June 25, 2003, signed at Ljubljana on October 17, 2005

(Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of section

2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Kingdom of Spain

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in

Criminal Matters between the United States of America and the

Kingdom of Spain signed November 20, 1990, signed at Madrid

on December 17, 2004 (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the

declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the Kingdom of Sweden

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein),

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

Declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of

Sweden on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed

December 17, 2001, signed at Brussels on December 16, 2004

(Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to the declaration of section

2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mutual Legal Assistance Instrument Between the United States of America

and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring

therein)

Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent subject to a

Declaration.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the

Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement

on Mutual Legal Assistance between the United States of

America and the European Union signed June 25, 2003, as to

the application of the Treaty between the Government of the

United States of America and the Government of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Mutual Legal

Assistance in Criminal Matters signed January 6, 1994, signed

at London on December 16, 2004, with a related exchange of

notes signed the same date (Treaty Doc. 109-13), subject to

the declaration of section 2.

Section 2. Declaration.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is

subject to the following declaration:

This Treaty is self-executing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 952, S. 3328.

I ask unanimous consent that the Lieberman amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 953, H.R. 3068.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 961, S. 1255.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6984, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 971, S. 2816.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2932, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.