Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the teacher tax act of 2005, which I am offering along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator Landrieu. Our bill increases to $400, and makes permanent, the tax deduction available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase classroom supplies. It would also allow this above-the-line deduction for expenses related to professional development.

This bill builds upon the $250 tax deduction established by legislation we authored in 2001, which became law as part of that year's tax relief package. The Tax relief provided by that bill was later extended through the end of this year.

Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. One such teacher is Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years, Tyler incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.''

It is important that this deduction also be available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well- qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important

contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible to get. By making professional development expenses deductible, this bill will help teachers take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love to do.

The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a step in the right direction. Increasing that deduction, and making it permanent, would be a small but appropriate means of recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the teacher tax act of 2005, which I am offering along with my good friends, Senator Warner and Senator Landrieu. Our bill increases to $400, and makes permanent, the tax deduction available to teachers who incur out-of-pocket expenses to purchase classroom supplies. It would also allow this above-the-line deduction for expenses related to professional development.

This bill builds upon the $250 tax deduction established by legislation we authored in 2001, which became law as part of that year's tax relief package. The Tax relief provided by that bill was later extended through the end of this year.

Increasing the deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies is warranted by the facts. So often teachers in Maine, and throughout the country, spend their own money to improve the classroom experiences of their students. While many of us are familiar with the National Education Association's estimate that teachers spend, on average, $400 a year on classroom supplies, other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. Indeed, I have spoken to dozens of teachers in my home State who tell me they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit--a few even as much as $1,000--on materials they use in their classrooms. At every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money to improve the educational experiences of their students by supplementing classroom supplies. One such teacher is Debra Walker, who teaches kindergarten and first grade in the town of Milo, ME. She has taught for more than 25 years. Year after year, she spends hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, crayons, construction paper, tissue paper, stamps and inkpads. She even donated her own family computer for use by her class. She described it well by saying, ``These are the extras that are needed to make learning fun for children and to create a stimulating learning environment.''

Another example is Tyler Nutter, a middle school math and reading teacher from North Berwick, ME. After teaching for just two years, Tyler incurred substantial ``startup'' fees as he built his own collection of needed teaching supplies. In his first years on the job, he spent well over $500 out-of-pocket each year, purchasing books and other materials that are essential to his teaching program. This tax deduction is, in Tyler's words, ``a nice recognition of the contributions that many teachers have made.''

It is important that this deduction also be available to teachers who incur expenses for professional development. While this tax relief provides modest assistance to educators, it is my view that students are its ultimate beneficiaries. Studies consistently show that well- qualified teachers, and involved parents, are the most important

contributors to student success. Educators themselves understand just how important professional development is to their ability to make a positive impact in the classroom. Teachers in Maine repeatedly tell me that they need, and want, more professional development. But tight school budgets often make funds to support this development impossible to get. By making professional development expenses deductible, this bill will help teachers take that additional course or pursue that advanced degree that will make them even better at what they love to do.

The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is a step in the right direction. Increasing that deduction, and making it permanent, would be a small but appropriate means of recognizing our teachers for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Energy bill conference agreement. The final version of this legislation is imperfect, but it takes important steps forward in addressing some of this Nation's energy problems. This bill will strengthen electric reliability, further develop our renewable energy resources, and improve energy efficiency.

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Domenici and ranking member Bingaman for their long and arduous work on this subject. We have now been working on comprehensive energy legislation for nearly 5 years, under three different Congresses and three different Energy Committee chairmen. I know it has been a very difficult path. I express my sincere appreciation to Chairman Domenici for his dedication, leadership, and willingness to accommodate a great diversity of views on the subject of energy policy.

I am very pleased that the Energy bill provides nearly $3 billion for wind, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. This credit could help a major wind energy development project move forward in Aroostook County and will help Maine's forest products industry by providing an important revenue stream for waste forest products. Developing Maine's wind and biomass resources creates jobs in rural areas, provides additional revenue to farmers and struggling industries, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and helps diversify our energy supply. While I am disappointed that the bill does not contain the provision which I authored, along with Senator Bingaman, to require that 10 percent of our electricity come from renewable energy sources by the year 2020, the bill nevertheless makes important strides forward in developing our renewable energy resources.

This bill will also help improve our electricity reliability by creating new standards for the national electric transmission grid and creating incentives to spur the creation of a stronger and more robust grid. This bill also provides for improved market transparency, the first ever broad prohibition on market manipulation and filing false information, and new consumer protections for utility customers.

I am also pleased by a number of provisions included in the bill to help spur greater energy efficiency. Consumers will be able to take advantage of tax credits for hybrid cars, solar water heaters, and energy efficient improvements to existing homes. Additional tax credits will spur energy-efficient appliances and alternative fueled vehicles, which will not only reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions but also reduce oil imports. In addition, a number of new Federal programs and 15 new product standards will reduce natural gas use in 2020 by 1.1 trillion cubic feet, and reduce peak electric demand by an amount equivalent to that produced by 85 power plants. All of these programs will not only help protect the environment, but also help consumers save money on their energy bills.

Several other provisions bear mentioning. I am pleased that the final legislation retains the amendment which Senator Levin and I offered regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This amendment requires the Department of Energy to develop procedures for using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in such a way as to reduce the impact on taxpayers and energy consumers, while maximizing oil supplies and improving U.S. energy security. This amendment will help mitigate the impact of the Department of Energy's misguided policies on the Nation's gasoline prices.

I am also pleased that the bill includes language regarding ISO New

England's misguided Locational Installed Capacity plan, also known as LICAP. This language requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to very carefully weigh the concerns of Maine and other New England States regarding this proposal. I am very concerned that the LICAP proposal would unnecessarily raise electricity rates in Maine, and I urge FERC to consider this issue very carefully.

While I believe the bill makes important progress in some areas, I am extremely concerned that this bill fails to stop our growing and increasingly dangerous reliance on foreign oil. Regretfully, a provision requiring that we save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015 was dropped from the bill. This provision, which I co-authored, was included in the Senate-passed bill, but removed by the House. In addition, I am disappointed that the bill does not require any increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles. Although the energy efficiency provisions for hybrid automobiles and alternative fuel vehicles are important steps forward, they are not enough. Four years ago I released a report predicting that crude oil prices would hit $60 per barrel by the year 2010 unless we took aggressive action to increase our energy efficiency and reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Without greater energy efficiency measures, I am concerned that prices are likely to go even higher.

I am also concerned by a provision in the bill that would allow for an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. I am strongly opposed to oil exploration on restricted areas of the OCS, and I believe this inventory is pointless since this Congress has no intention of allowing drilling in these areas.

I would note that this bill is much improved over the 2003 conference report which I could not in good conscience support. First, I am pleased that this legislation does not include a very harmful liability waiver for the manufacturers of MTBE. MTBE is a noxious chemical which has polluted drinking water supplies in Maine and many other States. I saw no justification for allowing the manufacturers to be let off the hook in terms of cleaning up this chemical, and I am grateful to Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman for refusing to give in to those advocating for the waiver.

I am also very pleased with the improvements to the electricity title in this bill. The electricity provisions in this bill are good for the Northeast and have the potential to promote competitive markets which are more efficient, more reliable, and lower priced than we have now. I am pleased that the Carper-Collins provision to promote combined heat and power was retained in the bill.

While the legislation before us does not address our dangerous reliance on foreign oil, it nevertheless takes important steps to increase our use of renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, and strengthen our electricity grid. While I am disappointed at some of the things that were included in the bill as well as many things that were not included, I nevertheless believe that the bill is a step in the right direction. Given our extremely high energy prices and an even more dire energy crisis looming just over the horizon, I believe we simply cannot afford to block needed improvements out of fear that they do not go far enough, and I therefore intend to vote in favor of this legislation. However, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation as a first step, and to again address these issues next year and the year after, until we finally begin to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and provide a secure energy future for the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve an important means of protecting the safety of those who work in the Federal judiciary system.

This legislation, which I am pleased to sponsor with my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, pertains to information on Federal financial disclosure forms.

This legislation would amend the Ethics in Government Act to extend for five years the authority to redact financial disclosure statements filed by judges, and other officers and employees of the Federal judiciary. This redaction occurs after a finding is made by the Judicial Conference, in consultation with the United States Marshals Service, that revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger the filer. In such cases, this legislation would allow redactions of information that could put the filer or his or her family at risk.

In 1988, Congress recognized the potential for threats against individual judges. As a result, Congress authorized the judicial branch to redact, when circumstances require, certain information from individual financial disclosure reports before they are released to the public. The redaction provision was set to expire at the end of 2001, but Congress extended the redaction authority for an additional four years. The current authority expires at the end of this year.

The five-year extension in this legislation will help Congress ensure that the Judicial Conference carries out the authority in a manner that achieves the appropriate balance between safety measures and public disclosure. Given recent incidents of violence against judges and their families, the inclusion of threats to the filer's family is necessary to provide security and peace of mind.

The record shows that this redaction authority has been used sparingly and wisely. In its report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Judicial Conference reported that, of the 3,942 Federal judiciary employees required to file financial disclosure reports in 2004, only 177

reports were partially redacted before release.

For 40 judges, the approved redaction requests were based on specific threats such as high-threat trials, ongoing protective investigations, identify theft, and continuing threats from criminal defendants and disgruntled civil litigants. For 137 judges, the approved redaction requests were based on general threats and the disclosure of a family member's unsecured place of work, the judge's regular presence at an unsecured location, or information that would reveal the residence of the judge or members of the judge's family.

In response to a request by our Committee, the Government Accountability Office reviewed redaction requests from 1999 through 2002. GAO found that less than 10 percent of annual judicial filers requested any type of redaction.

In each instance where a report was redacted in its entirety, the determination was made that the judge who filed the report was subject to a specific, active security threat. Redactions of information identifying assets, gifts, reimbursements or creditor listings were allowed in only a very limited number of cases, and then only until the specifically identified threat ceased. According to the Judicial Conference, the most frequent redaction requests now relate to information that would reveal where a judge or a member of the judge's family can regularly be found.

A fair and impartial judiciary requires a safe and secure environment. This legislation will help ensure the judicial branch has procedures in place to protect personal information while ensuring the public retains its right to access to the annual disclosure reports. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve an important means of protecting the safety of those who work in the Federal judiciary system.

This legislation, which I am pleased to sponsor with my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, pertains to information on Federal financial disclosure forms.

This legislation would amend the Ethics in Government Act to extend for five years the authority to redact financial disclosure statements filed by judges, and other officers and employees of the Federal judiciary. This redaction occurs after a finding is made by the Judicial Conference, in consultation with the United States Marshals Service, that revealing personal and sensitive information could endanger the filer. In such cases, this legislation would allow redactions of information that could put the filer or his or her family at risk.

In 1988, Congress recognized the potential for threats against individual judges. As a result, Congress authorized the judicial branch to redact, when circumstances require, certain information from individual financial disclosure reports before they are released to the public. The redaction provision was set to expire at the end of 2001, but Congress extended the redaction authority for an additional four years. The current authority expires at the end of this year.

The five-year extension in this legislation will help Congress ensure that the Judicial Conference carries out the authority in a manner that achieves the appropriate balance between safety measures and public disclosure. Given recent incidents of violence against judges and their families, the inclusion of threats to the filer's family is necessary to provide security and peace of mind.

The record shows that this redaction authority has been used sparingly and wisely. In its report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Judicial Conference reported that, of the 3,942 Federal judiciary employees required to file financial disclosure reports in 2004, only 177

reports were partially redacted before release.

For 40 judges, the approved redaction requests were based on specific threats such as high-threat trials, ongoing protective investigations, identify theft, and continuing threats from criminal defendants and disgruntled civil litigants. For 137 judges, the approved redaction requests were based on general threats and the disclosure of a family member's unsecured place of work, the judge's regular presence at an unsecured location, or information that would reveal the residence of the judge or members of the judge's family.

In response to a request by our Committee, the Government Accountability Office reviewed redaction requests from 1999 through 2002. GAO found that less than 10 percent of annual judicial filers requested any type of redaction.

In each instance where a report was redacted in its entirety, the determination was made that the judge who filed the report was subject to a specific, active security threat. Redactions of information identifying assets, gifts, reimbursements or creditor listings were allowed in only a very limited number of cases, and then only until the specifically identified threat ceased. According to the Judicial Conference, the most frequent redaction requests now relate to information that would reveal where a judge or a member of the judge's family can regularly be found.

A fair and impartial judiciary requires a safe and secure environment. This legislation will help ensure the judicial branch has procedures in place to protect personal information while ensuring the public retains its right to access to the annual disclosure reports. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 229, a resolution designating September 2005 as National Preparedness Month.

As the horrific attacks in London again demonstrate, the threat of a terrorist attack is very real. Although we have made significant strides in preventing and deterring another attack from occurring in the United States, it is imperative that steps be taken to mitigate the effects of the attack. In addition, natural disasters can strike at any given moment and we must know how to respond.

During the month of September, the Department of Homeland Security and the American Red Cross will co-sponsor National Preparedness Month 2005. This nationwide effort will involve more than 130 private sector organizations that will host and sponsor activities across the Nation to increase public awareness of preparedness. Activities such as CPR and first aid classes, blood drives, and other events is a simple and effective way for communities to become involved in preparedness efforts. Families, schools, and businesses can prepare for emergencies by taking steps such as making emergency supply kits, becoming informed about emergencies, and creating a family communications plan.

I join Senator Lieberman in cosponsoring this resolution to promote citizen emergency preparedness. I hope that my colleagues will join us by supporting this important initiative.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has shed much needed light on a disturbing problem, and that is the improper use of foreign subsidiaries by U.S. firms to conduct business in certain rogue nations where they might otherwise be barred from doing business by U.S. sanctions laws.

Like the Senator from New Jersey who has been a real leader on this issue, I have been very disturbed to read of allegations that foreign subsidiaries of some of the best known American corporations have been conducting operations in countries such as Iran and Syria, even though U.S. sanctions laws prohibit their U.S. parents from doing so directly. There are allegations that some of the subsidiaries in question are not even real companies but, rather, they are shell corporations that were created just for the purpose of evading the law.

These reports highlight that our sanctions laws are not as tough and as effective as they should be. In seeking a solution to this problem during the past year, I have consulted extensively with the Treasury Department, the State Department, and other experts. It turns out to be very complicated and presents a technical set of legal and foreign policy issues to accomplish the goals that both the Senator from New Jersey and I share.

Let me try to frame the choice that is now before our colleagues.

We have before the Senate two proposals designed to extend the reach of U.S. law, specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to cover companies doing business with countries covered by U.S. sanctions laws.

Let me explain what my proposal would accomplish. It does four things. First, it would extend IEEPA to prevent U.S. companies from trying to evade the law by moving operations overseas.

Second, my amendment would prohibit U.S. companies from approving, facilitating, or financing actions that are illegal under IEEPA.

Third, it ratchets up the penalties for violations of the law from $10,000 per civil violation and $50,000 per criminal violation to $250,000 and $500,000 respectively.

And fourth, it ensures that the Treasury Department has the subpoena power it needs to enforce the new sanctions.

Let me explain what it would not do. Most important, my proposal would not jeopardize our working relationships with key allies by attempting to assert U.S. jurisdiction on companies that operate and are incorporated elsewhere.

Second, it will not provide yet another incentive for American companies to move their jobs overseas through corporate inversions.

These are the main problems with the approach of my colleague from New Jersey. Again, I emphasize that I share the same goal as my colleague from New Jersey, and I salute him for focusing much needed attention on a very real problem.

Let me explain further. My colleague's amendment attempts to impose sanctions on businesses operating and incorporated in foreign countries. So, for example, if a U.S. firm has a subsidiary in Great Britain, my colleague's amendment proposes to extend U.S. law to that subsidiary, even if U.S. law is inconsistent with British law.

This is a dangerous and imperious approach to foreign policy. If other countries tried to impose similar rules on us, imagine how we would respond. For example, imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to impose criminal and civil penalties on a Saudi firm's U.S. subsidiary operated and incorporated under the laws of our country because that firm was doing business in Israel, or imagine if Germany attempted to impose sanctions on a German firm's American subsidiary, again operating here under our laws and regulations, for not meeting German labor laws that are inconsistent with our laws.

Moreover, my colleague's amendment would create the perverse incentive for American firms to invert or move overseas in order to avoid the onerous and extraterritorial application of our sanctions laws. We must not choose that path.

There is a very real problem here with some American companies exploiting an exception that is in the current law, but I believe that the proposal I have advanced would greatly strengthen our laws, would provide new tools for enforcement, and would enormously increase penalties for violations.

It would make crystal clear that a U.S. company is prohibited from in any way approving, facilitating or financing actions of a subsidiary that would be illegal under the sanctions law.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, again I commend the Senator from New Jersey for focusing attention on what is a very real problem, and that is that the current law is not tough enough and there are reports that subsidiaries of some very well-known American corporations are doing business in states where U.S. sanctions laws apply. But I think when you deal with this area, you need to be very careful to not craft a proposal that has unintended consequences.

Moreover, my colleague's amendment does not do what the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, has specifically named as the legislative step that would be of most benefit to them, and that is substantially increasing the penalties in the current law.

My proposal would do that. Senator Lautenberg does not include increases in the penalties.

In addition, my proposal explicitly grants the Treasury statutory subpoena power to ensure that it has all of the enforcement tools it needs.

But let me go back to the underlying issue. The Collins amendment would be very specific in barring any action by a U.S. firm in approving, facilitating or providing financing for any action by its foreign subsidiary that would be unlawful for the parent company to engage in.

It would also prevent U.S. companies from evading the law by setting up a subsidiary overseas, a shell corporation. So I think the proposal that I have set forth greatly strengthens the current law.

We do not, however, want to create a perverse incentive that would encourage American companies to invert and reincorporate overseas, and I fear that could well be the result of the amendment of Senator Lautenberg.

I am concerned about something else, and I have given these examples. We don't want to open the door to foreign governments trying to impose on the American subsidiaries of firms incorporated in their countries, their countries' laws.

Let me give the example again. What if the Saudi Government tried to impose a restriction on doing business in Israel on the American subsidiary of a Saudi firm? We would be outraged about that.

This proposal raises many complex technical questions, and that is why the Treasury Department and the State Department have urged caution and much prefer the approach embodied in the Collins amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield from his time, I would be happy to answer that question.

Mr. President, under my amendment, it is very clear that an American parent could not in any way be involved in a subsidiary's decision to do business in a prohibited nation. It could not approve it. It could not facilitate it. It could not direct it. It also could not set up a subsidiary for the purpose of evading the law.

The subsidiary could not do business if it were in any way directed to do so, approved, financed, in any way, by the American parent. The language is very clear on that.

Mr. President, I respect the intentions of my colleague from New Jersey, but his proposal is overbroad. It is strongly opposed by the administration. I urge opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of the Honorable Christopher Cox, of California, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. Roel C. Campos, of Texas, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Ms. Annette Nazareth, of the District of Columbia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. John C. Dugan, of Maryland, to be Comptroller of the Currency; Mr. John M. Reich, of Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; and Mr. Martin J. Gruenberg, of Maryland, to be a member and vice chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., to consider an original bill entitled, ``The National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Guarantee Act of 2005.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Energy Trends in China and India: Implications for the U.S.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting to markup nominations, treaties, and legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 10 a.m., in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on legislation to resolve the lawsuit of Cobell v. Norton and to address a number of areas of Indian trust reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform'' on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Edward Kennedy, U.S. Senator, D-MA;

The Honorable John McCain, U.S. Senator, R-AZ;

The Honorable Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator, R-AZ;

The Honorable John Cornyn, U.S. Senator, R-TX;

Panel II: The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Defense, Washington, DC;

The Honorable Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Labor, Washington, DC;

Tamar Jacoby, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, New York, NY;

Gary Endelman, Author and Immigration Practitioner, Houston, TX;

Hal Daub, President and CEO, The American Health Care Association (AHCA), and testifying on behalf of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Timothy Elliot Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 4 p.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: TBA.

Panel II: Timothy Elliott Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``GSA--Is the Taxpayer Getting the Best Deal?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 10 am in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this subcommittee hearing will be to discuss how farm bill programs can better support species conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Perspective on Patents: Harmonization and Other Matters'' on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Witness List

The Honorable Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and Senior Counsel Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, Alexandria, VA;

The Honorable Q. Todd Dickinson, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, General Electric Company, Fairfield, CT;

Christine J. Siwik, Partner, Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, on behalf of Barr Laboratories, Inc., Chicago, IL;

Marshall C. Phelps, Jr., Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA;

Charles E. Phelps, Provost, University of Rochester on behalf of the Association of American Universities, Rochester, NY;

David Beier, Senior Vice President of Global Government Affairs Amgen, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 25 at 2:30 am to discuss electronic waste.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following calendar items en bloc: Calendar Nos. 11, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 95, and 106.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments at the desk be agreed to en bloc; the committee-reported amendments, as amended, if amended, be agreed to en bloc; the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; the amendments to the titles, where applicable, be agreed to; and that any statements related to the bills be printed in the Record.

I ask consent that the committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 38, H.R. 481, and H.R. 541, and the Senate proceed to the measures en bloc, provided that the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, and any statements related to the bills be printed in the Record.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that calendar Nos. 19, 23, 31, and 40 be indefinitely postponed.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to en bloc consideration of the following bills introduced earlier today: S. 1480, S. 1481, S. 1482, S. 1483, S. 1484, and S. 1485.

I further ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, all en bloc.

I now ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of H.R. 794, S. 706, and S. 279.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to S. 279 be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesy. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and on behalf of the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, I call up three amendments that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments now be set aside.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would accept the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is a very important issue to many of us. I understand the chairman and the ranking member did debate this issue at some length last week. I am sure the chairman is correct in saying we would all benefit from reading that colloquy as we prepare to debate these issues further and ultimately cast our votes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, Senator Lieberman and I offered, and the Senate adopted, Amendment #1142 to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The amendment, which seeks to improve the process for providing homeland security grants to State and local governments, is nearly identical to S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill which was reported out of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. S. 21 was placed on the Senate's legislative calendar on May 4, 2005, and a detailed and comprehensive report from the Committee, Senate Report 109-71, accompanied S. 21 at that time. Because of the near identity of S. 21 and the amendment, this report pertains to Amendment #1142 as well.

Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Connecticut in encouraging those who are conferees on this bill and those who will be implementing the amendment if it is enacted to read and rely on the text of Senate Report 109-71.