Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is aimed at providing needed assistance to law enforcement agencies to address the problem of criminal activity along our Nation's borders. The legislation is cosponsored by myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Cornyn. It has passed the Senate on two previous occasions, including last year as part of the Senate's 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Specifically, the amendment establishes a competitive grant program within the Department of Homeland Security to help local law enforcement that is situated along our borders to cover some of the costs they incur as a result of having to deal with illegal immigration, with drug trafficking, with stolen vehicles, and with other border-related crimes. The amendment authorizes $50 million a year to enable law enforcement within 100 miles of the border to hire additional personnel and obtain the equipment and cover the overtime and transportation costs they incur in these activities. Law enforcement outside of this geographic limit that is provided for in the amendment would be eligible if the Secretary of Homeland Security certified that they were located in a ``High Impact Area.'' The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with Canada and 1,989 miles of border with Mexico. Many of the local law enforcement agencies that are located along these borders are small, rural departments that are charged with patrolling large areas of land with very few officers and very limited resources. According to a 2001 study of the U.S.- Mexico Border Counties Coalition, criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration exceed $89 million each year. Counties along the southwest border are some of the poorest in the country and are not in a good position to cover these additional costs. For far too long, local law enforcement agencies operating along our borders have had to incur significant costs due to the inability of Government to secure our Nation's borders. It is time that the Federal Government recognize that border communities should not have to bear this burden alone. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I am informed this amendment has been cleared by both sides, and I think we are ready to go to a vote on it, unless the managers wish additional debate.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their leadership in getting this higher education bill to the floor. I know they have worked on it for many years now. As I understand it, the current Higher Education Act, which we have had to extend, was scheduled to expire in 2004. We are now getting around to actually passing a reauthorization of that legislation, which I think is very important to do. Last week, we overwhelmingly approved the student aid package that promises millions of students the ability to afford college. That package included more than $17 billion in student aid over 5 years. For my State of New Mexico, that translated into $177 million of new aid for New Mexico students and their families over the next 5 years. I was glad to be part of the committee that prepared that legislation. I am glad to see it passed by an overwhelming vote of 78 to 18. But financial assistance is only one part of the puzzle, as Senator Enzi pointed out. We need to do more, and the legislation before us today gives us the ability to do more. First, we need to do more to address the increasing cost of attending college. Second, we need to ensure more students graduate from college and are prepared to succeed in this 21st-century global economy. And, third, we need to reform the student loan system so it works better for students rather than just for lenders. I believe this legislation accomplishes all three of those objectives. These higher education amendments of 2007 have a number of provisions designed to address the rising cost of college. We have all talked about the rising cost of college. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than it was last year, and the average cost of going to a 4-year college is $13,000 this year. The bill sets forth a comprehensive approach to addressing these problems. First, the amendments will establish a higher education price index to accurately reflect annual changes in tuition and fees for undergraduate students. The Secretary of Education will be required to report annually in a national list and in a list for each State a ranking of colleges according to the extent of changes they have made in their tuition and fees. The Secretary is also required to establish a higher education price increase watch list in order to hold colleges accountable for their rising costs by publicizing those colleges where increases are the highest. Second, the bill makes significant changes to the financial aid process. It makes Pell grants available to students all year round so they can take courses during the summer, and they can finish college earlier. It will also simplify the forms that these students have to complete. The bill also removes barriers for students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency so they can apply for financial aid. These amendments provide a number of types of loan forgiveness, scholarships, and fellowship opportunities. Let me mention just a few. The bill provides loan forgiveness for early childhood educators, including Head Start teachers and preschool program instructors, full- time faculty members of tribal colleges and universities, school librarians, speech and language pathologists, and members of the Armed Forces. It authorizes graduate fellowships for minority students and women. We need to increase the number of students who can succeed and graduate from college, and this bill places great emphasis on activities that not only help high school students prepare for college but help those same students succeed in college and graduate from college. The higher education amendments improve student academic readiness for college by strengthening the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. For example, the bill requires GEAR UP partnerships to systematically change the way schools prepare students for college. It requires States and school districts to encourage more students to enroll in rigorous high school course work and emphasizes activities that will support the development of college prep curricula, including advanced placement courses. The bill also strengthens the TRIO programs by establishing outcome criteria for measuring the quality and effectiveness of the programs around the country. The bill includes a provision that I authored that creates a new grant program to assist colleges and universities that serve large numbers of Native American students. Currently, there is no particular Federal program to assist nontribal schools that provide educational services and support to large Native American student populations. We have a number of such schools in my home State of New Mexico such as San Juan College, University of New Mexico in Gallup, New Mexico State University in Grants, and the Eastern New Mexico campus in Ruidoso. The bill provides grants to such colleges to improve and expand their capacity to serve Native American students through such activities as curriculum development, academic instruction, faculty development, acquisition of education instruction, research equipment, and a variety of other activities. The higher education amendments also improve programs for students whose families are engaged in migrant and seasonal farm work to enter and succeed in college. This is very important. In addition, the bill authorizes funding for the Navajo Technical College to help pay the costs to operate postsecondary career and technical educational programs for Native American students. This authorization will significantly increase the Navajo Technical College's ability to provide high-quality career and technical training to ensure that Native American students graduate with the skills needed to succeed in this economy. I am also very glad this legislation contains provisions from the Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act of 2007. This is legislation that I introduced, along with Senator Hutchison and others, to establish a long overdue Hispanic-serving institution graduate program. Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year colleges. The percentage of Hispanic students attending college has increased significantly in recent years. Unfortunately, Hispanic students are woefully underrepresented in the graduate programs around our country, and this legislation will try to help solve that problem. The higher education amendments will also require teacher preparation programs to substantially improve over the next several years. Finally, as we see the price of college rising steadily, an increased number of students are forced to rely on loans in order to finance their education. We have seen from recent investigations that some lenders in the Student Loan Program, and even some financial aid officers, have been exploiting the student loan system to the detriment of the very students they are meant to help. This reauthorization will make a number of very important changes to the Student Loan Program. It will ensure that colleges recommend lenders to their students based on the best interest of the students and not on the self-interests of the financial aid officers. Further, it will prohibit payments or gifts or other inducements from lenders to colleges or to financial aid administrators that constitute a conflict of interest. Importantly, it will require colleges to establish and follow a code of conduct with respect to student loans. Let me reiterate that this is extremely important legislation. I commend the majority leader for bringing it to the Senate floor. I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their bipartisan effort to move this legislation forward. Together with the student aid package that we approved last week, this legislation will allow us to make college accessible to all and affordable for every family in this country. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns be given floor privileges for the duration of this debate: Kelly Shepherd, Christopher Schmidt, and Shannon Saltclah.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on August 2, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1253, a bill to establish a fund for the National Park Centennial Challenge, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to, rachel_pasternack@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on July 26, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 300, to authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for other purposes; S. 1258, to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities; S. 1477, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project in the State of Colorado; S. 1522, to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2014, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1025, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina_Weinstock@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224- 5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be allowed floor privileges during today's session of the Senate: Erin McGuire, Maureen McGuire, Owen Thal, Samantha Currier, and Sonia Russo.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that his fellow, Taniesha Woods, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the higher education reconciliation bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I advise my colleague from Michigan that I believe the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, was here planning to speak before I spoke. So on the Democratic side it would be Senator Nelson, and then Senator Lautenberg, and then myself.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in October 2002, this Chamber gathered to consider one of the most serious decisions I have been involved in confronting in the 25 years I have been in the Senate. That was a decision on whether to grant President Bush authority to invade Iraq. At that time, nearly 5 years ago, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, believing that it was necessary to give the United Nations weapons inspectors the time they needed to determine whether Iraq did, in fact, possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I believe that we needed to gather the facts and we needed to make an informed decision as to whether Iraq posed such a terrible and immediate threat to our country that regime change was warranted. As we all know now, the weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found. Unfortunately, the weapons of mass destruction were not the only thing the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and other members of the administration were wrong about when it came to beginning this war. They were also wrong in thinking that we could succeed in Iraq without substantial help from our allies. They were wrong to reject warnings that the invasion would fracture Iraq's delicate sectarian balance. They were wrong to dismiss legitimate questions about how we would rebuild Iraq's civil society. They were wrong to think that Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia, in particular, would ignore their opportunity to fill a regional power vacuum after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. They were wrong to promise the American people, as Secretary Rumsfeld's assistant, Ken Adelman, did, that Iraq would be a ``cakewalk.'' My statement at that time, nearly 5 years ago, was the following: If war must be waged, other countries should be there with us sharing the costs and helping to restore stability in what will almost certainly be the tumultuous aftermath of military action. Mr. President, ``tumultuous'' only begins to describe the calamity we face in Iraq today. Almost 5 years have passed since that October day. Five years is longer than it took Presidents Roosevelt and Truman to defeat the Axis Powers in World War II. Today, Iraq is diverting the United States from other very important foreign policy matters. First, of course, it is diverting us from the fight against terrorist networks worldwide. Second, it is diverting us from responding to the rise of China as a world power. Third, it is diverting us from reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels and particularly lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Fourth, it is diverting us from keeping our country economically competitive during this era of globalization. Respect for America around the world has eroded dramatically as a result of this war. To many around the world, the symbol of our country today is no longer the Statue of Liberty; instead, it is Abu Ghraib. President Bush and Vice President Cheney often tell us that we are in Iraq to fight the terrorists who attacked us on September 11. In his 2003 State of the Union speech, the President told us that Saddam ``aids and protects'' terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. In 2004, the Vice President promised ``ample evidence confirming the link . . . between al-Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services.'' In 2005, the President said: They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11. In March, Vice President Cheney said: Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. . . . As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day. Just last week, as many speakers have reiterated, President Bush said: The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th. So the administration has been consistent in its formulation of this problem. The truth is, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He did not support al-Qaida before September 11, and al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq prior to that date. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his regime posed little immediate threat to the United States or its allies. The Baath party, as a secular Arab nationalist movement, had no history of cooperation with al-Qaida or other Islamist movements. The truth is that al-Qaida's offshoot, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, is in Iraq today because of our decision to invade. As the Washington Post pointed out recently, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is an Iraqi phenomenon. Its membership is largely Iraqi. It derives its primary financing indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And those terrorists and would-be terrorists who have come to Iraq from other countries would not have been there absent this conflict. Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia thrives over Sunni grievances over our occupation of that country. Our continued occupation of that country is its best recruiting tool. President Bush has treated terrorism as a monolith. As David Kilcullen, a counterterrorism analyst, has written, the President has lumped together all terrorism, all rogue states, all strategic competitors. Lumping every dangerous terrorist movement together profoundly misconstrues the nature of terrorism and, in fact, encourages eclectic groups to collaborate. It places our Nation in greater jeopardy, not less jeopardy. So the question today is, where do we go from here? The fundamental problem in Iraq today is not a lack of U.S. troops; it is an absence of national reconciliation. The U.S. role in Iraq should not be to police an endless civil war. Rather, it should be to facilitate a settlement among the parties themselves. The President has belatedly realized that we did not marshal enough troops to stabilize Iraq following our invasion in 2002. But today, merely adding troops is not the solution. The administration's ongoing troop surge is unlikely to prove effective absent a broader political settlement. If current trends continue, our policy will be, de facto, one of siding with the Shia over the Sunnis. The Shia-led government knows this. It has, therefore, played for time by clinging to the status quo, by dragging its feet on national reconciliation. The Shia-led government has shown little sign that it appreciates the need for accommodation of national minorities. It has missed the most important milestones that have been identified by the Iraq Study Group and by this Congress. The administration's own benchmark report released several days ago reports unsatisfactory progress on debaathification, on passage of an oil law, on holding provincial elections, on disarming militias. The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission has failed to make adequate progress. There has been progress on other benchmarks. I welcome that progress. But these were second-order issues compared to the challenge of national reconciliation. And the bloodshed continues. Going forward we need to focus on two objectives. First, we need to send the Iraqi ruling elite a crisp and credible signal that our commitment to maintaining forces in that country is not unconditional. Only by making this point loud and clear do we create the possibility that the Shia-led government will take the painful steps necessary toward national reconciliation. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to do what it can to create a degree of political stability in Iraq. But I repeat the key phrase in that sentence, ``do what we can,'' for we can do no more. Our commitment to Iraq is not openended. We cannot impose a political settlement without the cooperation of the political elites in the country. The Iraqis themselves must want a solution. Second, we need to draw down U.S. troop presence in a responsible way. Too precipitous a withdrawal will undermine the credibility of America's commitment to facilitating a political settlement in the country. We need to provide a carrot by allowing for the continued presence of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping capacity if the Iraqi Government does bring about some measure of national reconciliation. It is because of these two principles that I supported the first supplemental appropriation this spring. That legislation set a firm date for beginning withdrawal. That was the stick. It set a date for completing withdrawal. This arrangement left open the possibility of leaving some U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq if, ultimately, the factions forged a political settlement. That was the carrot. This approach remains sound today. And today, with these objectives, in mind, I would urge five steps that we must take in Iraq. First, we need to announce a firm deadline to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. The credible threat of a withdrawal, perhaps more than withdrawal itself, may convince the Iraqi ruling elite of the need to accommodate national minorities. The mere threat of a withdrawal says that our commitment to Iraq is not unconditional. It proclaims that we will not preserve the failed status quo. I applaud my colleagues, such as Senator Levin, Senator Reed and Senator Feingold, for fighting for a firm deadline. They may disagree on the specifics of withdrawal. But they do agree that if they do not continue to push for a firm timetable, the Bush administration will cling to that failed status quo. The fact that the administration is even considering alternatives is a direct result of our decision to push for some change in direction by a specific date. Second, we must form a multinational working group to discuss the way forward in Iraq. It is crucial for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to be involved. They have historical and religious links to national minorities in Iraq. They have the most to lose by continued instability there. We cannot achieve any political settlement in Iraq without their active participation. Third, this group--not the Iraqi Government--should convene a Dayton- style multinational conference to help Iraq's factions forge a political settlement. Fourth, such a settlement would provide for a negotiated withdrawal of U.S. combat troops, as the Iraq Study Group prescribes. If appropriate, other U.S. troops could stay, ideally as part of a multinational or U.N. peacekeeping force. Finally, we should implement the other recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including using our good offices to mediate other conflicts in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Bush should begin by appointing a special envoy to the region, and I applaud his announcement yesterday of a resumption in aid to West Bank Palestinians. I conclude my remarks by saluting the servicemen of my home State who have given their lives while answering our Nation's call to duty in Iraq. I have asked the Pentagon for an accounting of all New Mexican service personnel who have died in Iraq to this date, and that is the accounting I will go through at this time. While the people of New Mexico and of our entire Nation mourn their loss, we will always celebrate the lives they led and the sacrifices they made for our country. Marine LCpl Christopher Adlesperger, 20, of Albuquerque, NM, attended the University of New Mexico before joining the Marine Corps in 2003. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Fallujah on November 10, 2004. SGT James Akin, 23, of Albuquerque, NM, is quoted by the Albuquerque Tribune as saying, ``Live life to serve, because you can. Dissent, because you can. Enjoy freedom, because you can. Remember always that the measure of our progress is not whether we can provide more for those who have plenty, but whether we can provide enough to those who have little.'' He is survived by his wife and his father. SGT Matthew Apuan, 27, was a 1998 graduate of Mayfield High School in Las Cruces. He was on his second tour in Iraq when he died near Baghdad on February 18, 2007. LCpl Aaron Austin, 21, a Lovington, NM, native, was killed in Fallujah, Iraq, on April 26, 2004. Austin proposed to his girlfriend over the phone from Iraq while on his second tour of duty. PFC Henry Byrd III, 20, of Veguita, NM, graduated from Belen High School in 2004. Before enlisting, Byrd was a volunteer firefighter in his community. CPL Lyle Cambridge, 23, of Shiprock, NM, and a member of the Navajo Nation, joined the Army in May of 2002. After his death in Baghdad on July 5, 2005, Lyle's sister said she couldn't remember ever seeing her brother mad. One of her fondest memories of her brother is that he bought his older sister a new Easter dress every year. SP Roberto Causor, Jr., 21, was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, in Fort Bragg, NC. He died on July 7, 2007. His parents reside in Rio Rancho, NM. Marine LCpl Steven Chavez, 20, was born in Hondo, NM, and graduated from Hondo High School before entering the Marines. Chavez loved the outdoors and participated in track, basketball and football while at Hondo. Chavez was killed about a week before he was set to return home. SPC Jeremy Christensen, 27, of Albuquerque, NM, was already a veteran of the Armed Forces on September 11, 2001. He decided his country needed him again and reenlisted. A coworker said the 27-year-old told him that he was ready to go to war and he wasn't scared. CPL Joel Dahl, 21, of Los Lunas, NM, had searched for a family during his teen years in the foster care system. Dahl was excited to finally have a family of his own when he learned of his wife's pregnancy. Corporal Dahl was killed in Baghdad, Iraq, 5 days before the birth of his son. 1LT Jeremy Fresques, 26, was a 1997 graduate of Farmington High School. His wife Lindsay requested that people remember her husband as ``a strong Christian man, a good husband, and someone we can all be proud of.'' Marine LCpl Jonathan Grant, 23, was raised by his grandmother in Pojoaque, NM. Grant left behind a fiancee, a young daughter, and a young son. SGT Tommy Gray, 34, of Roswell, NM, is remembered by his mother Joyce as having a passion for fishing and comic books. Sergeant Gray was in the Army for 15 years and is survived by his wife Rene. Army LTC Marshall Gutierrez, 41, a native of Las Vegas, NM, died in Kuwait of non-combat related injuries on September 4, 2006. Gutierrez, a 1983 graduate of West Las Vegas High School and a 1987 graduate of New Mexico Highlands University, was assigned to the Area Support Group in Arijan, Kuwait. Marine LCpl Shane Harris, 23, was always willing to do anything for anyone, according to his coworkers. The Las Vegas, NM, native was killed in combat in al-Anbar Province, Iraq, on September 3, 2006. Marine LCpl Chad Hildebrandt, 22, of Springer, NM was killed conducting combat operations against enemy forces in al-Rutbah, Iraq, on October 17, 2005. Classmates described Hildebrandt as a role model to younger students. SPC Alexander Jordan, 31, died on September 10, 2006, of injuries caused by enemy small-arms fire while he was conducting a mounted patrol in Baghdad. Jordan, whose father lives in Rio Rancho, attended Cibola High School in Albuquerque and the New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell. SPC Stephen Kowalczyk, 32, lived in Albuquerque, NM, while his father served in the Air Force. While there, he graduated from Highland High School and in 2004 decided to join the Army. He is survived by his mother, a brother and four sisters. SGT Joel Lewis, 28, of Sandia Park, NM, was serving his first tour in Iraq when he was killed by an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Baqubah. Lewis was charismatic and loved the outdoors. He enjoyed hockey, skydiving and snowboarding. SPC Christopher Merville, 26, of Albuquerque, NM, graduated from the University of New Mexico. He had an interest in Civil War history and toured civil war battlegrounds with his uncle. SPC James Pirtle, 27, of La Mesa, NM, planned to return home in January of 2004 to I pick up where he left off with his wife, two stepsons, and a baby girl. His mother said of James, ``My son was my hero before he went in; now he is the world's hero.'' LCpl Christopher Ramos, 26, of Albuquerque, NM, was killed in al- Anbar Province. His wife Diana said that Chritopher was her best friend, a wonderful husband, and a great father. PFC Mario Reyes, 19, of Las Cruces, NM, assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, Colorado was killed November 7, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol in Baghdad. Marine Sgt Moses Rocha, 33, helped make his friends stronger people just by being near them. The Roswell native was serving his second tour in Iraq when he was killed by militant fire. His is survived by his teenaged daughter. SSG Joseph Rodriguez, 25, played football and Rugby as a teen in Las Cruces, NM. His mother remembers her son doing well in math classes at school, and he would always add up numbers for her in his head. He is survived by his wife Leslie, and their son Ethan. PFC Ricky Salas, 22, called Roswell his home with his wife April, and their two young children. He was killed March 7, 2006, when the vehicle he was in was hit by an improvised explosive devise and overturned in Mosul, Iraq. Marine LCpl Emilian Sanchez, 20, of Santa Ana Pueblo, was proud of his Native American heritage and carried eagle feathers with him to Iraq. He was killed during combat operations in al-Anbar Province, Iraq, on January 21, 2007. Army SGT Leroy Segura, 23, of Clovis, NM, loved his grandmother's home-made tortillas and his mother's menudo. He helped his high school win the district cross country title in 2000. SPC Clifford Spohn, 21, of Albuquerque, NM, graduated from Cibola High School in 2004 and joined the Army the following October. He leaves behind a wife and 4-year old daughter. SPC Jeremy Stacey, 23, joined the Army in 2003 in Albuquerque, NM. Stacey died on July 5, 2007, and was posthumously promoted to the rank of corporal and awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. His mother resides in Los Lunas, NM. Army Medic SGT Lee Todacheene, 29, was a proud member of the Navajo Nation. His father said that, ``He respected himself and everybody. He was generous and kind, and he loved his family above everything else.'' Todacheene is survived by his wife and his 11- and 12-year-old sons. Army SGT Eric Vizcaino, 21, of Albuquerque, NM, left behind a young wife and 2-year-old daughter. His father asked his son to consider leaving the Army after his deployment, but Sergeant Vizcaino wanted to remain a soldier. Marine LCpl Jeremy West, 20, was born in Albuquerque, NM, and served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the grandson of Tim Kline, a former Albuquerque city councilor and Albuquerque Police Department police lieutenant. Army SGT Marshall Westbrook, 43, a Farmington, NM, native and Army National Guard military police officer, is survived by his wife Jolene and their five children. He was described as a gentle giant by a close friend in his military police unit. SPC Clifton Yazzie, 23, of Fruitland, NM, was killed January 20, 2006, during his second tour of duty when a roadside bomb exploded near his humvee in Al Huwijah, Iraq. Yazzie, a 2001 graduate of Kirtland Central High School, was a member of the 101 st Airborne Division. His loss is mourned by his wife, his two children, his parents, and the Navajo Nation. Army CPL Jesse Zamora, 22, a native of Las Cruces, NM, was killed on February 3, 2006, during his second tour of duty when he was hit by a piece of shrapnel from a roadside bomb near his humvee in Beiji, Iraq. A 2002 graduate of Mayfield High School, his brother Tyrel was also serving in Iraq when he was killed. Zamora was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze star during his second tour. Army CPL Jose Zamora, 24, was looking forward to returning to his family and his wedding when he was killed in Iraq on August 6, 2006. He was raised in Sunland Park, NM. Marine MAJ Douglas Zembiec, 34, of Albuquerque, NM, served in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq and had been awarded the Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, a Navy Commendation with Gold Star and a Navy Achievement medal. A 1991 graduate of La Cueva High School, Zembiec was killed on May 11, 2007, during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq. He is survived by his wife and his daughter.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak, first, in favor of the legislation Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi have brought to the Senate floor and also to speak in opposition to an amendment I understand is going to be offered to this bill at some point in the proceedings. But let me begin by congratulating Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their good work. This is a very major step forward in providing the resources young people in this country, not just young people but all Americans, need in order to pursue postsecondary education. It is a very major step forward. I am proud to be a supporter of this legislation and proud to be part of the committee that Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi chair and are the ranking member of. We all know the costs of going to college have skyrocketed in recent years. We have seen a 35-percent jump in tuition, adjusted average tuition and fees, for instate students at public colleges and universities since the 2001-2002 school year. This 35-percent increase represents the largest increase in any 5- year period since the Government has been keeping track of these figures. This year alone, the cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than it was last year, averaging $12,796, including room and board in our schools. At the same time, we are seeing increased competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. These students command high tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there is a smaller proportion of financial aid budgets available for low-income students at colleges with rising tuitions. Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise the amount of Pell grant scholarships for needy students. Congress finally did increase Pell grants this year for the first time in many years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition and fees and room and board at a public 4-year college. Last year, the maximum Pell grant covered only 35 percent of those costs. I have a chart I wish to show to make that point. This chart is entitled, ``The Gap Between Grant Aid and Cost of Attendance to Increase.'' You can see the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is the red column, for each of those years starting with the 2001-2002 school year and ending with the 2006-2007 school year. So the red column is the cost of attendance, and the white column is the maximum Pell grant. You can see it has been virtually stagnant during this same period. As the chart demonstrates, the gap between grant aid that is available to low-income students and what it costs to go to college has increased very substantially since 2001. In the 2006-2007 school year, that is the school year that we just completed, the average student came up short by almost $9,000. I submit it is a disgrace for us nationally each year to allow hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend 4-year colleges to fail to do so because of the inability to deal with the financial barriers they face. More and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. We have seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country. Let me show another chart. ``Students Are Borrowing More,'' is the title of this chart. And then the subtitle is: ``From 1993 to 2004, the average amount of total student loan debt for 4-year college graduates has more than doubled.'' In 1993, you can see the figure in this column, $9,250, that is the average student debt at the end of a 4-year college. In 2004, the average debt for a student who finishes a 4-year college and graduates is over $19,000. This chart demonstrates, I think very clearly, we have students graduating with too much student loan debt. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 of debt. The good news is the underlying bill, that is, the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, will actually increase student aid by about $17.3 billion over the next 5 years. Most importantly, this very significant increase does not add to our national debt. It is paid for by cutting excessive Federal subsidies to lenders who are participating in the student loan program. I have one more chart I wish to use to make a point. This chart is called, ``The Senate Proposal Increases Grant Aid for Students.'' This chart demonstrates the bill substantially increases Pell grants to $5,100 this next year and to $5,400 by 2011. Under the proposal, the maximum Pell grant would increase by $790 next year alone. In addition, the bill will simplify the financial aid process for low-income students by increasing the income level at which a student is automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant. Also, it will protect working students, increasing the amount of student income that is sheltered from the financial aid process. This new student aid package could mean as much as $177 million in new grant aid for students in my State of New Mexico alone over the next 5 years. This increase would mean almost $41 million for students attending the University of New Mexico during this next 5-year period; almost $44 million for students attending New Mexico State University; $15 million for students attending Eastern New Mexico University; more than $6 million for students attending Western New Mexico University; and more than $5 million for students attending New Mexico Highlands University. The bill also would cap Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. This would bring needed relief to students who do have excessive debt. In addition, the bill advances a critical policy objective, that is, to incentivize students to pursue careers in public service. The bill would forgive the debt of borrowers who work in public service careers, careers such as nursing and teaching and law enforcement, for a 10-year period. So the package is vital to the students in my State of New Mexico, to their families, and to our economy. Unfortunately, the amendment that I understand is going to be proposed to this bill is an amendment that Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Burr of North Carolina will offer. This amendment would strip $3 billion from the student aid package and put these critical Federal dollars into the wallet of the large for-profit lenders. Let me state for the record I strongly support the Federal Family Education Loan Program. This is also known as the FFEL Program. Most Senators understand this program is essential to helping so many students and their families gain access to college. Frankly, you don't know how many of New Mexico's students would be able to gain access to college without this program. The underlying bill, however, recognizes, as did the President in his fiscal year 2008 budget, that FFEL lenders are very heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. Currently, these lenders are guaranteed a specified interest rate by law regardless of what the student borrower pays. This rate is 2.34 percent higher than commercial paper. The President proposed to reduce the subsidy by one-half of a percent, by 50 basis points. Similarly, the underlying bill reduces the subsidy by half of a percent for most of these lenders. The main discrepancy, however, is the underlying bill recognizes the critical role many of our State and private nonprofit lenders play in administering the FFEL Program, and it imposes a smaller reduction on them. I believe this is a fair and an equitable approach. In my State, we have such a program. New Mexico Student Loans is a private, nonprofit corporation. It was created by the New Mexico State Legislature in 1981, to provide loans and educational programs and systems to New Mexico students and families, ensuring the broadest possible access to higher education for citizens of our State. Nonprofit lenders, such as New Mexico Student Loans, are limited by law in how they can use their revenues. If they earn more than the funds have cost them, they either have to use that revenue to reduce the cost of loans to students or send that funding back to the U.S. Treasury. The savings realized by nonprofits are returned to the students through zero-fee loans, through reduced interest rates, through principal forgiveness, for ontime payments, and specialized reduced interest rates and loan forgiveness programs for teachers and nurses and doctors. In New Mexico alone, $8.6 million was returned to the borrowers through borrower benefits and loan forgiveness in 2006. For-profit lenders, on the other hand, returned these earnings not to the students, not to the borrowers but instead to their own shareholders. For example, New Mexico Student Loans charges 0 percent interest for teachers if they stay and teach in New Mexico; it charges 0 percent interest for nurses and doctors who practice in our State. These programs are necessary to fill critical workforce shortages in my State. Unfortunately, the Nelson-Burr amendment would eliminate the distinction between the nonprofit lenders and the for-profit lenders, many of them very large organizations such as Sallie Mae, Nelnet, Bank of America, Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase. It would eliminate that distinction between the nonprofits and the for-profits by lowering the subsidy cut for the for-profit lenders to the same rate we are providing for nonprofits. The proponents of the amendments argue this amendment is about increasing student choice and protecting the student loan program. I respectfully disagree with that argument. To the contrary, the amendment would do nothing to increase student choice; rather it would provide a significantly greater competitive advantage to big banks and lenders, thereby forcing smaller lenders out of business. Unfortunately, this amendment which is anticipated will be offered, the Nelson-Burr amendment, would literally strip $3 billion from the funds available for low-income students and significantly hinder the ability of many nonprofit lenders to provide critical student services and benefits. I am afraid the amendment is nothing more than an attempt to protect the huge profits of large lenders and further enrich their shareholders at the expense of low-income students and the American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment if it is offered, as I understand it will be. To conclude, I commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their leadership in developing this legislation and bringing it to the Senate. I hope very much we can move ahead with it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President today I am introducing a bill with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer entitled ``the Border Health Security Act of 2007.'' This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border. The U.S.-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 native american tribes, and 4 States in the U.S. and 6 States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. Yet, the situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S. are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the Nation. In a recent report by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with few resources. According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005, for the 3-year average of 2002 to 2004, the States of Texas and New Mexico rank first and second as the States with the highest uninsured rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than twice the U.S. rate of 14.2 percent. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes: The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk. The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its health border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer, would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities about how to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health; health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. We would certainly expect that those grants will be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the health border 2010 initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. On October 15, 2001, just 1 month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the south and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out: Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding or health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I would also thank Senators Cornyn and Boxer for working with us on this important legislation and for their constant support over the years for the work of the Commission. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President today I am introducing a bill with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer entitled ``the Border Health Security Act of 2007.'' This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border. The U.S.-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents. The border region comprises 2 sovereign nations, 25 native american tribes, and 4 States in the U.S. and 6 States in Mexico. Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. Yet, the situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the border region, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in the U.S. are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lowest per capita income as a region in the Nation. In a recent report by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Coalition found that, if the border were a State, it would rank second with respect to the uninsured, last with respect to access to health professionals, including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals per capita; second with respect to tuberculosis, third with respect to hepatitis; and fifth with respect to diabetes. The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with few resources. According to U.S. Census Bureau data reported in September 2005, for the 3-year average of 2002 to 2004, the States of Texas and New Mexico rank first and second as the States with the highest uninsured rates in the country with rates of 25.0 percent and 21.0 percent, respectively. California and Arizona are not much better and had uninsured rates of 18.7 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's small area health insurance estimates, SAHIE, the three New Mexico border counties had an uninsured rate of 29.4 percent compared to the statewide average of 23.7 percent and more than twice the U.S. rate of 14.2 percent. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes: The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk. The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its health border 2010 initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and, increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent. However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Hutchison, Cornyn, and Boxer, would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities about how to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health; health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. We would certainly expect that those grants will be used for the purpose of striving to achieve the measurable goals established by the health border 2010 initiative. In addition, the bill contains authorization for $25 million for funding to border communities to improve the infrastructure, preparedness, and education of health professionals along the U.S.- Mexico border with respect to bioterrorism. This includes the establishment of a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. On October 15, 2001, just 1 month after the September 11, 2001, attack on our Nation, Secretary Thompson spoke to the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission and urged them to put together an application for $25 million for bioterrorism and preparedness. The commission has done so but has not seen targeted funding despite the vulnerability that border communities have with respect to a bioterrorism attack. Our legislation addresses the vulnerability of communities along the border and targets funding to those communities specifically to improve infrastructure, training, and preparedness. Our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the south and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet the region is often neglected. As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out: Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding or health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas. I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead senator in getting funding for the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception. I would also thank Senators Cornyn and Boxer for working with us on this important legislation and for their constant support over the years for the work of the Commission. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1634, a bill to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by email to britni_rillera@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Allen Stayman at (202) 224- 7865 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices. I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress. The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States. First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty. As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future. Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge. It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers. My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate. My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor. This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change. As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill. Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress. My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions. The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs. I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security. Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale. Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions. Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges. This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done. Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution. But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy. We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense. The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen. This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible. My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action. There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem. Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies. Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions. Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way. In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves. I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor. Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among individual Senate offices. I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this Congress. The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point is the most effective approach combines technology research and development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is only possible with leadership from the United States. First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's climate has reached 90 percent certainty. As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will have to expect worse in the future. Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the action necessary to meet this challenge. It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers. My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate. My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of coastal lands and impacts on the poor. This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change. As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill. Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can realistically press for action now in this Congress. My second point is the action we need now is a combination of technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb emissions. The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these programs. I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively confront global warming. I doubt there is a single Member of this body who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security. Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the resources to make the research and development investments we need and to provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale. Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions. Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that considers both our environmental and our economic challenges. This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it takes to get the job done. Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution. But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy. We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense. The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of these things happen. This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible. My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action. There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem. Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies. Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions. Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share unless the U.S. leads the way. In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope the President will work with us to work out the details of this proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make progress without having active and constructive dialog with the administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the issue needs and deserves. I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to bring to the Senate floor. Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this body and within the business community and the general public about the need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and cannot defend is continued paralysis.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Republic of the Marshall Islands Supplemental Nuclear Compensation Act at the request of the President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Honorable Kessai Note. For over 50 years, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and its predecessor committees, have worked with the government of the Marshall Islands to respond to the tragic consequences of the U.S. nuclear weapons tests that were conducted in the islands from 1946 to 1958, when the islands were a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The U.S. nuclear testing program raises powerful emotions, and difficult legal and political issues which complicate discussion. Of particular concern to some is that the question of the adequacy of the compensation paid by the U.S. is now before the U.S. Court of Claims. On May 10, I met with President Note during his trip to Washington and we discussed our shared desire to move forward on several issues. We agreed that is it important for our nations to continue to work together on other matters which are not in litigation, such as possible adjustments to programs that are important to the communities affected by the tests. I compliment President Note for his leadership, and for his thoughtful recommendation on how to approach these sensitive issues. The President proposed the introduction of legislation, at his request, that would propose solutions on several issues that are not before the court. This would allow the committee to hear formally from the administration and from the RMI government on whether the proposals should be adopted, or whether to consider alternatives. I concur in this approach along with several of my colleagues on the committee and we are committed to working with the RMI and the administration to seek agreement. It is important to note that any further compensation provided by the U.S. under this act would be made on an ex gratia basis. U.S. administration of the RMI ended in 1986 when the RMI gained sovereign self-government pursuant to the Compact of Free Association, as approved by the Compact Act, P.L. 99-239. The compact provides two methods of compensation, under the legal settlement and under an authorization for ex gratia assistance. Section 177 of the compact approved a legal settlement which provided: a $150 million Nuclear Claims Trust Fund; the establishment of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to adjudicate claims and pay awards; and it allows the RMI to request additional compensation if there are ``changed circumstances,'' that is, if information and injuries come to light after the settlement date which renders compensation under the settlement inadequate. Congress also included an authorization, under subsection 105(c) of the Compact Act, for additional ex gratia compensation to the communities of the northern atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik, and for supplemental health care. In 2000, the RMI submitted a petition to Congress contending that there have been ``changed circumstances'' and requesting some $3 billion for payment of the Tribunal's personal injury awards, replenishment of the Trust Fund, payment of the Tribunal's property damage awards, funding for national health care infrastructure and operations, and monitoring of Runit Island in Enewetak Atoll by a U.S. agency. In 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on the petition, S. Hrg. 109-178, and the administration testified in opposition to additional compensation on the basis that the requests did not meet the necessary legal tests: that injuries or damage must be a result of the nuclear tests; that they have arisen or been discovered after the effective date of the settlement; and that they could not reasonably have been identified as of the effective date of the settlement. The administration and other witnesses also questioned the RMI's contention that radiation affected an area beyond the four northern atolls of the Marshall Islands, and questioned the policies and methodologies used by the Tribunal in determining eligibility for compensation and the amount of awards. Nevertheless, the report by the administration on the RMI petition noted that, while certain requests do not qualify as changed circumstances, ``such programs might be desirable''. The legislation being introduced today has provisions regarding four such requests for assistance that I agree with President Note should be given consideration by the Congress. Runit Island: Between 1977 and 1980, the U.S. conducted a cleanup of some of the contaminated areas of Enewetak Atoll where 43 tests were conducted. Some of the contaminated soil and debris was relocated to Runit Island, mixed with concrete, and placed in Cactus crater that had been formed by one of the tests. Under the compact's nuclear claims settlement, the Marshall Islands accepted full legal responsibility for, and control over the utilization of areas in the Marshall Islands affected by the testing. In addition, however, the 1986 Compact Act, P.L. 99-239, reaffirmed the 1980 authorization, under P.L. 96-205, for a program now operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, for medical care and environmental monitoring relating to the testing program. Since then, the people of Enewetak Atoll have from time-to- time asked DOE to include monitoring of conditions at Runit within the scope of DOE's environmental monitoring program in order to assure the people living on other islands in Enewetak Atoll that there is no health risk from the material at Runit. DOE's whole body measurements of people living in the atoll shows that there is no increased risk and DOE has indicated that additional surveys should be carefully considered by Congress. Section 2 of this act would direct the Secretary of Energy, as a part of the existing monitoring program, to periodically survey radiological conditions regarding Runit and report to the Congress. Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, EEOICPA: This program was enacted in 2001 to provide compensation for DOE and contractor employees associated with the Nation's nuclear weapons program. During Senate debate, I submitted a list of facilities intended to be covered which included ``Marshall Islands Test Sites, but only for the period after December 31, 1958.'' However, the 75 Marshall Islands citizens who applied to the program were denied on the basis that Congress did not intend the law to cover those who were not U.S. citizens. I believe that this was an incorrect reading of Congressional intent and I can find nothing in the statute or legislative history that supports this conclusion. It is important to recognize that during the testing and clean-up period the Marshall Islands was a district of the U.S.-administered, U.N. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and that the U.S. and its contractors employed workers from the Marshall Islands and from neighboring Districts in the Trust Territory. Section 3 of this act would clarify that former Trust Territory citizens are eligible, and it would coordinate benefits with the Compact of Free Association so that if a person received compensation under the compact, that amount would be deducted from any award received under the EEOICPA. Four Atoll Health Care Program: Section 177 of the Compact approved the legal settlement of claims resulting from the nuclear testing program and provided $150 million to capitalize the Trust Fund. Among the uses for these funds was an allocation of $2 million annually to provide health care for those communities most affected by the tests: Enewetak, Bikini, Rongelap and Utrik. However, practical problems developed with the program. First, enrollment was expanded beyond those members of the communities who were likely to have been exposed to radiation, so that the funds available for each beneficiary was significantly reduced. Second, the Fund became depleted and the $2 million annual payment was terminated in 2003. To continue some level of service under the program, the RMI and the U.S. Congress continued to contribute funds on a discretionary basis until a longer-term solution could be developed. During a trip to the RMI in the summer of 2006, Senate staff met with officials of the RMI Ministry of Health and of the 177 Healthcare Program and outlined a possible new approach for supplemental health care. Instead of providing benefits to a pool of enrolled beneficiaries, the funding would be targeted geographically to support a primary care clinic in each of the affected communities. This approach has the advantage of assuring primary health care in these remote outer island communities and of avoiding the problem of over- subscription of the program in the urban centers where hospital facilities are available. Section 4 of the bill would authorize $2 million annually through 2023 for the continuation of this approach of supporting health care clinics in the outer island communities most affected by the tests. I believe that this proposal is an appropriate place to continue the discussion with the RMI and U.S. officials on how supplemental health care assistance to the RMI could most effectively be used in the future to meet the needs of affected communities. Impact Assessment: Underlying the debate between the U.S. and the RMI regarding compensation for injuries resulting from the testing program is a fundamental dispute over the extent of the affected area. The U.S. believes that the effects were practically limited to the four northern atolls of Rongelap, Utrik, Bikini, and Enewetak. However, the RMI and the Nuclear Claims Tribunal took the position that all 1958 residents of the RMI would be eligible to file claims for injuries resulting from the tests. Section 5 of the bill is intended to resolve this dispute by having the National Academy of Sciences conduct an assessment of the health impacts of the testing program. It is my intention to hold a hearing on the bill later this year. I look forward to continuing to work with President Note, my colleagues, and the administration on these proposals to respond, in part, to the legacy of our Nation's nuclear testing program in the Islands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an additional item has been added to the agenda of a previously announced hearing. On Thursday, June 28, 2007, I announced that a hearing would be held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 12, 2007, to consider pending nominations, including the nomination of Clarence H. Albright of South Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa E. Epifani of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; and James L. Caswell of Idaho, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. Since that announcement was made, the nomination of Brent T. Wahlquist of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and added to the agenda of the Thursday, July 12 hearing. As previously announced, the hearing will convene at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-266 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, and witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those Wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record, however, may send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150 or by e-mail to amanda_kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Clarence H. Albright, of South Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa E. Epifani, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; and, James L. Caswell, of Idaho, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to amanda_kelly@energy.senate.gov. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on July 12, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 488 and H.R. 1100, to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina; S. 617, to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at a discount to certain veterans; S. 824 and H.R. 995, to amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; S. 955, to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area; S. 1148, to establish the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission; S. 1182, to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the act; S. 1380, to designate as wilderness certain land within the Rocky Mountain National Park and to adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National Forest in the State of Colorado; and S. 1728, to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko- Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act of 2007. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to rachel_pasternack@energy.senate. gov. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 9863 or Rachel Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, last night the Senate worked late to produce an energy bill. I believe it is a good bill. It does not contain all I had hoped it would. Obviously, I regret that we were not able to go ahead with a vote on a renewable energy or electricity standard and also that we were not able to invoke cloture on the tax title of the bill. Nonetheless, I do think the bill will make important contributions to our energy security. I am proud to have worked on it with my colleagues. Much has been said about the bill, and I am not going to debate the issues involved again today. We spent 9 days debating the bill and filled many pages of the Congressional Record with that debate. But I would like to thank the many members of the Senate staff who have invested such long hours and enormous effort over the last couple of months to make this bill possible. In the hurry to get the vote accomplished last night, it was not possible to express appreciation to these staff members whose assistance was absolutely invaluable. First and foremost, I thank Bob Simon, the staff director of our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. His knowledge of the issues, his wise counsel, and his tireless energy were invaluable to me and to the Senate, in my view. I also, of course, thank Sam Fowler, our general counsel. He was involved at every step in the development and the passage of the legislation. The work product we have finished with out of the Senate is much better for his involvement. In addition, I thank Allyson Anderson, who worked on the carbon sequestration title and geothermal issues; Angela Becker-Dippmann, who kept track of the 350 or more amendments that were filed on the bill; Patty Beneke, who worked hard on the oil and gas leasing and public lands issues; Tara Billingsley, who worked on the biofuels title; Michael Carr, who worked on coal and transportation issues; Deborah Estes, who worked on the efficiency title; Leon Lowery, who labored mightily on the renewable energy standard or electricity standard; Jonathan Epstein, who worked on the science issues; Scott Miller, who helped on biomass and tax issues; and Cathy Koch of my personal staff and the staff director of the finance subcommittee on energy taxes, who played such a large role in crafting the tax amendment. I also thank the rest of the professional staff of the committee, who pitched in to help when called upon: David Brooks, Paul Augustine, Jonathan Black, Mike Connor, David Marks, Jorge Silva-Banuelos, Al Stayman, and Bill Wicker; our support staff: Mia Bennett, Amanda Kelly, Rachel Pasternak, Britini Rillera, and Gina Weinstock. Also, we have four excellent interns working with the committee this year: Kristen Meierhoff, Ben Robinson, Jodi Sweitzer, and Matt Zedler. I also express appreciation for the work of the minority staff of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and specifically: Frank Macchiarola, who is the Republican staff director; Judy Pensabene, who is the Republican chief counsel; Kathryn Clay and Kellie Donnelly. I commend the Senate Finance staff who worked so tirelessly to craft a tax package that would have been an invaluable complement to the authorizing legislation. Senate Finance staff on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle worked in concert to forge a bipartisan package and did that under the direction of Senators Baucus and Grassley. I acknowledge their excellent efforts. The staff includes Pat Bousliman, Ryan Abramam, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Elizabeth Paris, Pat Heck, Mark Prater, John Angell, Bill Dauster, and Russ Sullivan, of course, the staff director. I also thank Tom Barthold and the entire staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, who helped us greatly, particularly with the tax package that was offered as an add-on to this bill. Finally, I express my gratitude to the majority leader's staff. I have expressed my gratitude to the majority leader many times for his leadership in getting this bill to the floor and getting it passed through the Senate, but let me also thank the majority leader's staff and very able floor staff: Marty Paone, of course, the secretary for the majority; Lula Davis, the assistant secretary; Chris Miller, the majority leader's senior policy adviser; and all the other members of the staff, on both sides of the aisle, who worked very hard to see this happen. To each of them, I extend my heartfelt thanks. Shakespeare lamented how ``oft good turns Are shuffled off with such uncurrent pay.'' I think if he were speaking today, he would probably say: Are shuffled off with such inadequate pay as a simple thank you. So uncurrent or inadequate though it may be, our thanks is owed to all of the many staff members on our committees and in our personal offices whose hard work and professional assistance have made this legislative accomplishment possible. I am very grateful to each of them and wanted to acknowledge their contribution today. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I want to publicly state what I have stated several times in the last few days, and that is my appreciation to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for their leadership in putting this tax package together that has been reported favorably by the Finance Committee on which I am privileged to serve. Let me speak, briefly, about the Kyl amendment and then talk about the tax package more generally and why we should vote to invoke cloture on this tax package and proceed. On the Kyl amendment, my first concern is the obvious one: that adoption of the Kyl amendment would be totally irresponsible as a fiscal matter. The Kyl amendment says ``notwithstanding any other provision of the subtitle,'' the subtitle being those provisions that raise revenue to pay for this. We are in a pay-go situation in the Senate under our budgetary arrangements, so if we are going to provide tax credits and tax benefits to some parts of the economy, we need to pay for that. We need to find some way to obtain the revenue. The way the committee has found is to reduce the tax benefits that some other parts of the economy are enjoying today. So Senator Kyl's amendment says ``notwithstanding the provisions of''--the provisions in the tax package that raise revenue--none of this shall ``take effect unless the Secretary of Energy'' positively decides, that is, ``certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy.'' So, essentially, we are saying it is up to the Secretary of Energy whether we pay for this set of tax provisions. I do not think it is responsible for this Congress to take that position. I mean it is great, and I know everybody likes to be able to go home and say: I didn't oppose the production tax credit extension which is in the bill, I didn't oppose the investment tax credit for solar energy which is in the bill, I didn't oppose the provisions that would incentivize more biofuels production; all I opposed was the idea that we should pay for them. I don't think that is a responsible position for us to take. On the general tax package and the cloture issue, let me say, the arguments I have heard are three. Some have argued this is going to reduce production; some have argued it is going to increase the price of gas; some have argued this is going to hurt the energy companies. Let me address each of those points briefly. On reducing production, I don't think this is going to reduce domestic production of oil and gas. I think Senator Baucus made the point very clearly that the two big items that are being used to pay for this tax package are this section 199 provision, which was not even in the law until 2004. We are taking that away as it applies to certain large companies. Then, of course, the severance tax provision. Let me talk a minute about that. I wasn't here last evening when Senator Bunning was speaking, but I noticed he referred to it as Senator Bingaman's ``scheme'' in his comments last night. The severance tax proposal is not that; it is a 13-percent tax which would apply prospectively; there is nothing retrospective about it. It is prospective. It applies to all production of oil and gas that occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Gulf of Mexico. It is designed so it will not be unduly burdensome on any company that is producing in the Gulf of Mexico. I think we have done a good job in accomplishing that. It does not abrogate contracts. It is a forward-looking tax provision which I think is eminently reasonable. It would raise some revenue that is sorely needed if we are going to extend these tax provisions, including the production tax credit, the investment tax credit, and the other provisions that are in this bill. I feel very strongly that we should keep it in place, and it is an appropriate way for this Congress to proceed. The second argument we heard was if we adopt this, we are going to see an increase in the price of gas. The truth is we all know the price of oil is determined on the world market. Our producers produce something like 5 percent of the oil that goes into the world market. So the idea that for us to raise some revenue here is going to affect the price of gas at the pump is not true. If the world price of oil goes up, we wind up paying more at the pump; if the world price of oil goes down, we wind up paying less at the pump. I think American consumers have watched that occur year after year and they understand that is the circumstance. The other argument is this is going to hurt our energy companies, that this is an undue burden on them. When you look at the reality, the reported profits of the top five integrated oil and gas producers last year were over $111 billion. I don't begrudge them that, but that is 1 year, and that is 5 companies. If profits continue at somewhere in that range, we can reasonably expect very conservatively that producers-- large producers of oil and gas--will have over the next 10 years over $1 trillion in profits.