Jeff Bingaman

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, March 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at 202-224- 4756 or Britni Rillera at 202-224-1219.

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 Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 380, to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Scott Miller at 202-224-5488 or Rachel Pasternack at 202-224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today, entitled the ``Community Health Workers Act of 2007,'' would improve access to health education and outreach services to women and children in medically underserved areas, including the U.S. border region along New Mexico. Lack of access to adequate health care and health education is a significant problem on the southern New Mexico border. While the access problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, it is also attributable to non-financial barriers to access. These barriers include a shortage of physicians and other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate transportation; a shortage of bilingual health information and health providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care. This legislation would help to address the issue of access by providing $15 million per year for a three year period in grants to State, local, and tribal organizations, including community health centers and public health departments, for the purpose of hiring community health workers to provide health education, outreach, and referrals to women and families who otherwise would have little or no contact with health care services. Recognizing factors such as poverty and language and cultural differences that often serve as barriers to health care access in medically underserved populations, community health workers are in a unique position to improve health outcomes and quality of care for groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate services. They often serve as ``community specialists'' and are members of the communities in which they work. As such they can effectively serve hard-to-reach populations. A shining example of how community health workers serve their communities, a group of so-called ``Promotoras'' in Dona Ana County were quickly mobilized during a recent flood emergency in rural New Mexico. These community health workers assisted in the disaster recovery efforts by partnering with FEMA to find, inform and register flood victims for Federal disaster assistance. Their personal networks and knowledge of the local culture, language, needs, assets, and barriers greatly enhanced FEMA's community outreach efforts. The Promotoras of Dona Ana County demonstrate the important role community health workers could play in communities across the nation, including increasing the effectiveness of new initiatives in homeland security and emergency preparedness, and in implementing risk communication strategies. The positive benefits of the community health worker model also have been documented in research studies. Research has shown that community health workers have been effective in increasing the utilization of health preventive services such as cancer screenings and medical follow up for elevated blood pressure and improving enrollment in publicly funded health insurance programs. In the case of uninsured children, a study by Dr. Glenn Flores, ``Community-Based Case Management in Insuring Uninsured Latino Children,'' published in the December 2005 issue of Pediatrics found that uninsured children who received community-based case management were eight times more likely to obtain health insurance coverage than other children involved in the study because case workers were employed to address typical barriers to access, including insufficient knowledge about application processes and eligibility criteria, language barriers and family mobility issues, among others. This study confirms that community health workers could be highly effective in reducing the numbers of uninsured children, especially those who are at greatest risk for being uninsured. Preliminary investigation of a community health workers project in New Mexico similarly suggests that community health workers could be useful in improving enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or ``SCHIP.'' According to a 2003 Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare,'' community health workers offer promise as a community- based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities' access to health care and to serve as a liaison between healthcare providers and the communities they serve. Although the community health worker model is valued in the New Mexico border region as well as other parts of the country that encounter challenges of meeting the health care needs of medically underserved populations, these programs often have difficulty securing adequate financial resources to maintain and expand upon their services. As a result, many of these programs are significantly limited in their ability to meet the ongoing and emerging health demands of their communities. The 10M report also noted that ``programs to support the use of community health workers . . . especially among medically underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, should be expanded, evaluated, and replicated.'' I am introducing this legislation to increase resources for a model that has shown significant promise for increasing access to quality health care and health education for families in medically underserved communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2007. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Associations of Colleges and Universities, and the Hispanic Education Coalition, a coalition of 25 organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support appear in the text following this statement. Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez, Clinton, Cornyn, Salazar, Boxer, and Feinstein have joined in this effort as cosponsors. According to Census Bureau data, the Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000, and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent Census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin. Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age. Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic-Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic-serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States, HSIs enroll over half (51 percent) of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students. The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs. Current law only provides support for two-year and four-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs. Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and supports to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2007. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Associations of Colleges and Universities, and the Hispanic Education Coalition, a coalition of 25 organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support appear in the text following this statement. Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez, Clinton, Cornyn, Salazar, Boxer, and Feinstein have joined in this effort as cosponsors. According to Census Bureau data, the Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000, and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent Census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin. Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age. Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic-Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic-serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States, HSIs enroll over half (51 percent) of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students. The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs. Current law only provides support for two-year and four-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs. Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and supports to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, from April 28-30, 2007, more than 1,200 students from across the country will visit Washington, DC, to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, an important program developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education and administered by the Center for Civics Education. I am proud to announce that the State of New Mexico will be represented by a class from Highland High School from Albuquerque at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students will participate in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Independent studies show that students in the We the People program display a greater political tolerance and commitment to the principles and values of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. With many reports and surveys indicating the lack of civic knowledge and civic participation, I am pleased to support such a valuable program that is producing an enlightened and engaged citizenry. The names of these outstanding students from Highland High School are: Aaron A, Adams, Allison J. Anglin, Richard S. Baca, Laura E. Baldwin, Kristy R. Calderon, Daniel Chavez, Danielle N. Easley, Heather L. Goldberg, Gabriel J. Hogan, Peyton K. Holloway, Martha A. Muna, Denise H. Ortiz, Milagro Padilla, Catherine U. Pham, Long Pham, Mark Ridder, Evan D. Root, Whitney A. Sousa, and Ruby R. Watkins. I also wish to commend the teachers of the class, Bob Coffey and Steve Seth, who are responsible for preparing these young contestants for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Dora Marroquin, the State coordinator, and Patricia Carpeneter, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my State. I wish these students much success as they prepare to compete at the We the People national finals and applaud their great achievement.

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 Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Monday, February 12, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The dual purpose of this hearing is to receive recommendations on policies and programs to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and to expand the role of electric and gas utilities in energy efficiency programs. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Deborah Estes at (202) 224- 5360 or Britni Rillera at (202) 224-1219.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 12 other senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2007. I am pleased again to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Dorgan, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, Harkin, Schumer, Leahy, Levin, Specter, Ben Nelson, and Sanders are also cosponsors of the bill. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities. In response, every year since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. Since 2003, a bipartisan group of senators have included language in each of the Department of Transportation's appropriations acts that bars the use of funds to implement the mandatory cost sharing program. Our bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-five States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 40 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001. In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's business center and largest city. I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues. As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements could affect communities in as many as 22 states. These communities could be forced to pay as much s $130,000 per year to maintain their current air service. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows: Alabama, Muscle Shoals; Arizona, Prescott, Kingman; Arkansas, Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; California, Merced, Visalia; Colorado, Pueblo; Georgia, Athens; Iowa, Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas, Salina; Kentucky, Owensboro; Maine, Augusta, Rockland; Maryland, Hagerstown; Michigan, Iron Mt.; Mississippi, Laurel; Missouri, Joplin, Ft. Leonard Wood; New Hampshire, Lebanon; New Mexico, Hobbs, Alamogordo, Clovis; New York, Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh; Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona, Lancaster; South Dakota, Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee, Jackson; Vermont, Rutland; West Virginia, Clarksburg/ Fairmont, Morgantown. This year the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee will be taking up the reauthorization of aviation programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I do believe our bill is one important step in that process. As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing any mandatory cost sharing. I hope all senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 12 other senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2007. I am pleased again to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Dorgan, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, Harkin, Schumer, Leahy, Levin, Specter, Ben Nelson, and Sanders are also cosponsors of the bill. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities. In response, every year since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. Since 2003, a bipartisan group of senators have included language in each of the Department of Transportation's appropriations acts that bars the use of funds to implement the mandatory cost sharing program. Our bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-five States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 40 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001. In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's business center and largest city. I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues. As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements could affect communities in as many as 22 states. These communities could be forced to pay as much s $130,000 per year to maintain their current air service. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows: Alabama, Muscle Shoals; Arizona, Prescott, Kingman; Arkansas, Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; California, Merced, Visalia; Colorado, Pueblo; Georgia, Athens; Iowa, Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas, Salina; Kentucky, Owensboro; Maine, Augusta, Rockland; Maryland, Hagerstown; Michigan, Iron Mt.; Mississippi, Laurel; Missouri, Joplin, Ft. Leonard Wood; New Hampshire, Lebanon; New Mexico, Hobbs, Alamogordo, Clovis; New York, Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh; Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona, Lancaster; South Dakota, Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee, Jackson; Vermont, Rutland; West Virginia, Clarksburg/ Fairmont, Morgantown. This year the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee will be taking up the reauthorization of aviation programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I do believe our bill is one important step in that process. As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing any mandatory cost sharing. I hope all senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America. 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 oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to examine accelerated biofuels diversity, focusing on how home-grown, biologically derived fuels can blend into the Nation's transportation fuel mix. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tara Billingsley at (202) 224-4756 or David Marks at (202) 224-8046.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which the committee adopted earlier today, for publication in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Smith to introduce the Greater Access To Education, or GATE Act, of 2007. This legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to make college more affordable, and thus provide greater access to postsecondary education for lower income students and working families. Simply put, this bill would expand expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit, prevent aid for needy students from reducing the credit, and make the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits refundable. The cost of attending college in the U.S. has grown by 44 percent since 2000, far outpacing the median growth in income. We've seen a 35 percent jump in inflation-adjusted average tuition and fees for in- state students at public colleges and universities since 2001-02. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than just last year, averaging $12,796 including room and board. Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise Pell Grant Scholarships for needy students. This critical student aid has been frozen at just over $4000 for four years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college. Last year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs. At the same time, we're seeing increasing competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. And these students command higher tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there's a smaller proportion of the financial aid budget available for low income students at colleges with rising tuitions. A recent report by Education Trust found that many of the flagship and research-extensive public universities have reallocated financial aid resources away from the low income students who need help to go to college--mostly to compete for high income students who would enroll in college regardless of the amount of aid they receive. Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000--a staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995. In addition, many colleges and universities are now using ``enrollment and revenue management'' firms to help manage admissions and financial aid. I am concerned that too many schools are trying to leverage their financial aid to entice wealthier and high scoring students to attend their schools, at the expense of aid to lower income students. In essence, they're directing financial aid dollars to students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings. As a result, low income students are disproportionately bearing the brunt of increased college tuition and fees. In turn, more and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. And, we've seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 in debt. And, last year, Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student aid programs, pushing college further out of reach for American families. It is the largest single cut the Federal Government has made to student aid programs, and it is expected to increase the debt burden of students and their families as many borrowers of student loans will face higher interest payments. Congress, simply, has moved in the wrong direction, and failed to help make college more affordable for students from low income and working families. Full time students receive about $3,100 per year in aid in the form of grants and tax benefits at 4-year public institutions. In 2003-04, however, only 56 percent of 4-year public institution students from families with incomes below $30,000 received sufficient grant aid and tax benefits to cover tuition and fees. Even worse, we know that each year there are hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college but do not do so because of financial barriers. We must reverse this course and make college more affordable for students from low-income and working families. The first priority for this Congress should be to increase student aid for needy students. We must increase the amount of Pell grants to at least $5,100. The next thing we should do is make sure that the existing education tax credits work effectively for the families that need them most. The Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits have helped millions of Americans finance their college education. For this tax year, the credits allow eligible tax filers to reduce their tax liability by receiving a credit of up to $1,650 for the Hope program or up to $2,000 for the Lifetime Learning credit for tuition and course-related fees paid for a single student. Unfortunately, research shows that these tax credits are not working as effectively as they could be. They do not support students who are currently enrolled in college to any significant degree, and they do not induce greater numbers of students, including working adults who need to upgrade their education and skills, to earn a postsecondary degree. Many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students who attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those attending community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit. For college students attending institutions with relatively high tuition rates, the maximum credit will be available to cover the higher tuition. This is not the case, however, for many students, particularly the vast majority of community college students, as well as hundreds of thousands of students attending public four-year colleges, who attend college where the tuition is lower. These students are not able to access the full credit because tuition at these institutions is lower than the maximum credit, and the scope of the credit is limited to tuition and related expenses. College students must pay for much more than just tuition, however, including room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees. Further, a student's eligibility for the Hope tax credit is actually reduced by any grants the student receives--Federal, State, or private. The impact of this limitation is felt particularly by the by the low income students that receive Pell Grants or other Federal or State assistance. Often, the assistance received fully offsets the amount of the credit. This legislation is simple and straightforward, and is crafted to address these shortcomings. First, in addition to tuition, it allows the Hope credit to cover room and board, required fees, books, supplies, and equipment. It is important to note that the IRS Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as Section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre- paid tuition plans. As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges. The cost for books and supplies alone can be as high as $1000 per year. In addition, the legislation changes the IRS Code so that any Federal Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending four-year public colleges. But these fixes only get to a part of the problem. Because the education tax credits are not refundable, a family of four must earn above $30,000 to get the maximum credit. A student or working family must have a positive tax liability to receive the credit. Nearly half of all families with college students do not get the full credit because their income is too low. In fact, only 36 percent of filers claiming the credits at all had incomes under $30,000; less than 10 percent of filers claiming the credits had incomes under $15,000. By contrast, 36 percent of filers claiming the credits earned $50,000 or more. Making the credits refundable would ensure that families in lower tax brackets are eligible for the maximum benefits and would thus make college more affordable to those students and families who need the most assistance. I believe we all can agree that maintaining a skilled and educated workforce should rank as one of our highest priorities. The National Academy of Sciences projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow. This Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that every capable student who wants to go to college should be able to, which will in turn ensure that we have workers to fill the high-quality, high-wage jobs we are working so hard to create. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name. The Senate passed a bill in the 108th Congress to name the same courthouse for Judge Campos by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up the measure and it failed to be signed into law. I rise again to ask the Senate to pass the bill and honor the work and dedication of Judge Santiago Campos. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Smith to introduce the Greater Access To Education, or GATE Act, of 2007. This legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to make college more affordable, and thus provide greater access to postsecondary education for lower income students and working families. Simply put, this bill would expand expenses which qualify for the Hope Scholarship Credit, prevent aid for needy students from reducing the credit, and make the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits refundable. The cost of attending college in the U.S. has grown by 44 percent since 2000, far outpacing the median growth in income. We've seen a 35 percent jump in inflation-adjusted average tuition and fees for in- state students at public colleges and universities since 2001-02. The cost of going to college is 6.3 percent higher than just last year, averaging $12,796 including room and board. Unfortunately, year after year, Congress has failed to raise Pell Grant Scholarships for needy students. This critical student aid has been frozen at just over $4000 for four years. Ten years ago, the maximum Pell Grant covered more than 50 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college. Last year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs. At the same time, we're seeing increasing competition among colleges and universities for the highest scoring students. And these students command higher tuition discounts, particularly in the form of merit scholarships. As a result, there's a smaller proportion of the financial aid budget available for low income students at colleges with rising tuitions. A recent report by Education Trust found that many of the flagship and research-extensive public universities have reallocated financial aid resources away from the low income students who need help to go to college--mostly to compete for high income students who would enroll in college regardless of the amount of aid they receive. Between 1995 and 2003, flagship and other research-extensive public universities actually decreased grant aid by 13 percent for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less while they increased aid to students from families who make more than $100,000 by 406 percent. In 2003, these institutions spent a combined $257 million to subsidize the tuition of students from families with annual incomes over $100,000--a staggering increase from the $50 million they spent in 1995. In addition, many colleges and universities are now using ``enrollment and revenue management'' firms to help manage admissions and financial aid. I am concerned that too many schools are trying to leverage their financial aid to entice wealthier and high scoring students to attend their schools, at the expense of aid to lower income students. In essence, they're directing financial aid dollars to students who will increase a school's revenues and rankings. As a result, low income students are disproportionately bearing the brunt of increased college tuition and fees. In turn, more and more students increasingly rely on loans to finance their education. And, we've seen a significant increase in the amount of student debt in this country. In New Mexico, the average student now graduates from 4 years of college with more than $16,000 in debt. And, last year, Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal student aid programs, pushing college further out of reach for American families. It is the largest single cut the Federal Government has made to student aid programs, and it is expected to increase the debt burden of students and their families as many borrowers of student loans will face higher interest payments. Congress, simply, has moved in the wrong direction, and failed to help make college more affordable for students from low income and working families. Full time students receive about $3,100 per year in aid in the form of grants and tax benefits at 4-year public institutions. In 2003-04, however, only 56 percent of 4-year public institution students from families with incomes below $30,000 received sufficient grant aid and tax benefits to cover tuition and fees. Even worse, we know that each year there are hundreds of thousands of students who are prepared to attend a 4-year college but do not do so because of financial barriers. We must reverse this course and make college more affordable for students from low-income and working families. The first priority for this Congress should be to increase student aid for needy students. We must increase the amount of Pell grants to at least $5,100. The next thing we should do is make sure that the existing education tax credits work effectively for the families that need them most. The Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits have helped millions of Americans finance their college education. For this tax year, the credits allow eligible tax filers to reduce their tax liability by receiving a credit of up to $1,650 for the Hope program or up to $2,000 for the Lifetime Learning credit for tuition and course-related fees paid for a single student. Unfortunately, research shows that these tax credits are not working as effectively as they could be. They do not support students who are currently enrolled in college to any significant degree, and they do not induce greater numbers of students, including working adults who need to upgrade their education and skills, to earn a postsecondary degree. Many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students who attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those attending community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit. For college students attending institutions with relatively high tuition rates, the maximum credit will be available to cover the higher tuition. This is not the case, however, for many students, particularly the vast majority of community college students, as well as hundreds of thousands of students attending public four-year colleges, who attend college where the tuition is lower. These students are not able to access the full credit because tuition at these institutions is lower than the maximum credit, and the scope of the credit is limited to tuition and related expenses. College students must pay for much more than just tuition, however, including room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees. Further, a student's eligibility for the Hope tax credit is actually reduced by any grants the student receives--Federal, State, or private. The impact of this limitation is felt particularly by the by the low income students that receive Pell Grants or other Federal or State assistance. Often, the assistance received fully offsets the amount of the credit. This legislation is simple and straightforward, and is crafted to address these shortcomings. First, in addition to tuition, it allows the Hope credit to cover room and board, required fees, books, supplies, and equipment. It is important to note that the IRS Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as Section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre- paid tuition plans. As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room and board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges. The cost for books and supplies alone can be as high as $1000 per year. In addition, the legislation changes the IRS Code so that any Federal Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending four-year public colleges. But these fixes only get to a part of the problem. Because the education tax credits are not refundable, a family of four must earn above $30,000 to get the maximum credit. A student or working family must have a positive tax liability to receive the credit. Nearly half of all families with college students do not get the full credit because their income is too low. In fact, only 36 percent of filers claiming the credits at all had incomes under $30,000; less than 10 percent of filers claiming the credits had incomes under $15,000. By contrast, 36 percent of filers claiming the credits earned $50,000 or more. Making the credits refundable would ensure that families in lower tax brackets are eligible for the maximum benefits and would thus make college more affordable to those students and families who need the most assistance. I believe we all can agree that maintaining a skilled and educated workforce should rank as one of our highest priorities. The National Academy of Sciences projected that while the U.S. economy is doing well today, current trends indicate that the U.S. may not fare as well in the future, particularly in the areas of science and technology, where innovation is spurred and high-wage jobs follow. This Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that every capable student who wants to go to college should be able to, which will in turn ensure that we have workers to fill the high-quality, high-wage jobs we are working so hard to create. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the State of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name. The Senate passed a bill in the 108th Congress to name the same courthouse for Judge Campos by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, the House was unable to take up the measure and it failed to be signed into law. I rise again to ask the Senate to pass the bill and honor the work and dedication of Judge Santiago Campos. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. 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 Tuesday, February 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, examining the economic impacts of climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jonathan Black at (202) 224- 6722 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-5836. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. 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 Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on transportation sector fuel efficiency, including challenges to and incentives for increased oil savings through technological innovation including plug- in hybrids. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Michael Carr at (202) 224- 8164 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the issue of global warming is more and more on the minds of Americans. There is good reason why it is. I think we are familiar now with the litany of adverse consequences that is associated with unlimited release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The scientific reports are warning us about rising sea levels, about dangerous heat waves, about increasingly devastating hurricanes and other weather events. There are always uncertainties about understanding the Earth's climate, but one thing is clear: Uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with no real strategy to reduce those gases is irresponsible and dangerous at this point in our history. It is a great challenge that we face to reduce these emissions in this country and countries around the world. Even individual States within the United States, and regions of this country, are leading the way in dealing with this issue. The truth is, unless the United States as a whole and the developing countries that have rapidly growing economies find a way to reduce emissions, we are likely to see this entire planet covered with a blanket of gases that will take centuries to dissipate. In 2005 the Senate passed a resolution setting forth an approach to tackling the challenges of climate change. That resolution called for adoption of a mandatory, economy-wide program that will slow, stop, and then reverse greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy and that will encourage action by developing nations. Meeting those various tests set out in that resolution will require a bipartisan commitment to understand the impact of any legislative approach. Today I am joining with my colleague, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, in circulating a bipartisan discussion draft on global warming legislation. The choice to release this discussion draft reflects our desire to modify or approve that legislation in the coming months before it is introduced. This is our commitment to create a bipartisan process that will focus discussion in a constructive direction. I see three main challenges that we face in this process. First, we need to persuade our colleagues on the program that we have chosen; that is, a cap and trade proposal that incorporates market-based mechanisms and funding for technology development. In 2005 over 53 Members of the Senate went on record in support of such a proposal by defending that sense-of-the-Senate resolution and voting for it. We need to continue to expand that number. We need to engage the administration, which has refused to support such measures for reducing greenhouse gases. To begin to meet this first challenge, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to two documents. The first is an analysis by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, or EIA. This was in September of last year. I joined with five other Senators in submitting a request, a discussion draft to the Energy Information Administration asking them to analyze it. Earlier this month, they returned with very favorable results, showing that it is possible to implement a cap-and-trade proposal that begins to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy. The Energy Information Administration of this administration showed that the program has only minor impacts on gross domestic product--a quarter of 1 percent by 2030. That is equal to slowing the rate of economic growth by roughly 1 month over the next 20-plus years. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of this EIA analysis following the completion of my remarks.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the second challenge we face in this debate is to figure out the appropriate way to structure a cap-and- trade program. Putting targets and timetables aside for a moment and determining the appropriate structure of a cap-and-trade system in order that it functions properly will require an enormous amount of focus and attention. For over a year, I have worked in a bipartisan manner with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, to explore many of these issues. In February of last year we released a white paper from the Energy Committee entitled, ``Design Elements of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System.'' That white paper laid out four basic questions about the design of the cap-and- trade proposal. I was very encouraged that we received detailed and constructive comments from over 150 major companies, NGOs, and individuals. On April 4, 2006, we hosted a day-long workshop with 29 of these respondents talking about their reaction to the white paper. This was the first such discussion in Congress to have taken place. My colleagues can find a transcript of this conference on the U.S. Government Printing Office Web site. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a joint statement from my colleague, Senator Domenici, and myself that summarized the conference.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the third challenge we face in making progress on this issue is getting political consensus on the right levels of control. Here I am talking about the level of stringency and the aggressiveness of the program. There have already been a number of bills introduced this year. I commend all my colleagues who dedicated their time and effort to addressing this issue. First and foremost, of course, Senators Lieberman and McCain have reintroduced their legislation. These two Senators have been leaders on the issue from the beginning. Also, Senators Sanders and Boxer have reintroduced legislation that Senator Jeffords drafted last year, and I commend them for their leadership and their bold vision. As chairs of the two committees engage in the debate on global warming issues, I plan to work very closely with Senator Boxer to ensure that everything we do will keep momentum on global warming legislation moving forward. I also commend Senators Feinstein and Carper for working together to introduce legislation last week. Senator Feinstein was on our Energy Committee. She is not on that committee in this Congress, and she will be missed. But her leadership in this area is very important. I also would like to acknowledge and congratulate the efforts of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This is a unique and diverse group of industry and NGOs that have come together to offer principles on global warming legislation and recommendations for that legislation. With all these bills and strategies for reducing greenhouse gases on the table, it is vital that we work together to craft sensible policy that can be enacted sooner rather than later. The science tells us that action is needed immediately and that the longer we delay the more difficult the problem will be. I believe the modest impacts that are identified from our proposal, the one Senator Specter and I are circulating, as shown by the Energy Information Administration analysis, will provide a basis to explore somewhat more aggressive reduction targets. It is for this reason that we do not want to introduce our bill without first giving great deliberation to different targets and approaches that could gain political consensus in passing legislation. One thing is clear: We cannot delay. For this reason, I hope to promote a legislative approach that will reflect a constructive center in this often polarized debate. In circulating this discussion draft, Senator Specter and I are setting forth a process. The first step of the process is to invite Senate offices to a series of workshops with experts on the issue to educate and understand the impacts of the legislation. These sessions will be open to Senate staff. We also, of course, want to invite participation or observation by representatives from the administration. The first of the workshops will be February 2 in the afternoon. We also need to hear from the public and interested stakeholders. In the coming weeks, Senator Specter and I will be outlining a process to meet with stakeholders from industry, labor, environmental groups, and others. We plan to solicit their comments on the legislative text. A copy of the discussion draft and supporting documents will be posted on the Energy Committee Web site--energy.senate.gov. I encourage interested parties to look at that draft and to monitor the Web site for further developments. Madam President, following all of the other items that I have mentioned to be printed in the Record, I ask unanimous consent that the discussion draft that Senator Specter and I are circulating also be printed in the Record following the other documents.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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 Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed Budget for FY 2008 for the Department of Energy. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein at (202) 224-3031 or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. 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, February 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the President's Proposed Budget for FY 2008 for the Department of the Interior. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact David Brooks at (202) 224- 0963 or Rachael Pasternack at (202) 224-0883.