Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I also thank the members of the Armed Services Committee, the Senators from Michigan and Arizona, for all the work they have done on this Defense authorization bill. I hope the Members of the Senate would have an honest discussion and debate and vote on these amendments and to uphold the 60-vote threshold on something that is as important as this Defense authorization bill, the many amendments that are going to come before us today, I think, takes away from the process, quite honestly. As far as the air-conditioning goes in this body, I have advocated since I got here, if we shut the air-conditioning down, we would probably be a little more concise and gotten to the point a long time ago. I rise today in support of an amendment offered by my friend, Senator Webb. As many colleagues here in this body know, Senator Webb is a highly decorated marine and Vietnam veteran. I respect his judgment. I trust his counsel enormously on these issues. I am proud to cosponsor his amendment as one part of a strategy to strengthen our military and change course in Iraq. I also rise today to honor those who have served in Iraq, in honor of those who have been hurt there, and in honor of those 3,600 who never came home. Twenty brave men from my State paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. They are our friends, our neighbors, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, and our children. The war in Iraq has dominated this country's dialog and conscience for 5 long years. It is now costing us more than $2.5 billion every week; some say it is $3 billion. That is over $100,000 every minute of every hour of every day in Iraq. Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, one of the most difficult things for me is the struggle in my heart. I balance two seemingly contradictory ideas: I stand here today proud to support our men and women in service, and I also stand here today proud to say that I adamantly oppose this war. I lie awake trying to think of ways to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs in Iraq but all the while trying to figure out ways to bring them home to their families, friends, and communities. Let me be clear about this: The men and women fighting this war have my full and unconditional support as a Montanan, as an American, and as a Senator. This country's service men and women have performed their jobs with honor and distinction in the most difficult conditions imaginable. I have supported them since the beginning, and I will continue to support them in the field and, just as importantly, after they come home--something our Nation has fallen behind on doing. For more than 2 years, I have been asking the President of this great country to develop a plan to get us out of Iraq. I am disappointed to report that I no longer believe President Bush will use any of his remaining 559 days in office to do so. Think of this. We were told in 2003 that we were invading Iraq for the following 3 reasons: to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, and to give the Iraqi people a chance to establish their own government. While certainly no weapons of mass destruction were found, any infrastructure that may have been in place to create such weapons of mass destruction has been destroyed. Saddam Hussein's government has been dissolved, and an evil dictator has been captured and put to death. The Iraqi people have voted on several occasions on their Government, their Constitution, and their future. I would say our work in Iraq is done. It is time for American troops to stop refereeing a centuries old civil war and come home after a job well done. The President has not come up with a plan to bring the troops home. Instead, he jeopardized their funding, their equipment, and their training by vetoing legislation that would have funded those vital needs and begun the process of getting them home. The President uses our fighting men and women as pawns in this political game that is dividing our own people at home. That is totally unacceptable. President Bush's intention is clear--to leave our troops in the middle of this bloody civil war until he leaves office. That is why I am announcing I can no longer give the President the benefit of the doubt that he will end the Iraq war. I am going to take a moment today to share with my colleagues thoughts on a possible three-point plan I hope will bring the Iraq war closer to an end, make our troops safer around the world, and refocus our efforts on those terrorists who attacked this Nation on September 11. First, we must support the Webb amendment that protects the mental and physical health of our troops. We all know a neighbor or a friend whose son or daughter has been deployed two, three, or even four times with seemingly no rest at home. That is why I am cosponsoring this amendment with Senator Webb. It deals with troop readiness. His amendment basically says that if you are going to send a unit into war, make sure they are well trained, well rested, and ready for the fight. It is very simple. It is common sense. More and longer deployments of units with less time to rest and recuperate between means we are going to see more casualties in Iraq, more cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, and more suicides after they get home. According to the Army's own data, soldiers serving repeated deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with only one tour to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Let's think twice before we let the President send a unit to this war or any other of the world's hot spots without the proper training and time between deployments. The strength and long-term health of our Armed Forces is at stake. This war has taken its toll on our readiness. If we don't start now to rebuild and fortify our troops, we will not be able to effectively go after the bad guys who continue to threaten our national security. We need to pass this Webb amendment, period. It is the right thing to do for our troops. Second, we must redouble our efforts in Afghanistan. Afghanistan threatens to slide back from the progress that was made there immediately following the attacks of September 11. But the war in Afghanistan is rapidly and dangerously becoming a forgotten war, and our lack of effort there helps to explain the rise of al-Qaida in a nuclear and highly volatile Pakistan. The link between the 9/11 attacks and the current war in Iraq does not exist, period. It never has. Reports confirm that our invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Yet the terrorist who plotted the most deadly attack on U.S. soil, Osama bin Laden, remains at large and ignored by this administration. The recent news out of England and Scotland is a grim reminder that the threat of world terrorism is still very real. While we pour our resources into policing violence in Iraq, extremists are busy plotting ways to target us and our allies. It is that kind of terrorism, that kind of extremism we need to set our sights on. We need to do it with the full might and vigilance of our military and other security forces, and we must do it while working to regain the trust of so many allies who have become wary of us under the President's leadership. Unlike Iraq, we must not ask the U.S. military to shoulder this entire burden in Afghanistan by themselves. The United States can and should be leaders in the war against terrorism, but we cannot go it alone. We have an obligation to our troops and our families to regain the diplomatic footing we have lost and involve our allies in this effort. We have lost the focus on the war on terrorism and we must regain it. Finally, I am proud to announce my support for the amendment authored by Senator Byrd deauthorizing the 2002 use-of-force resolution. The resolution Congress passed in 2002 is tragically outdated. The mission in Iraq is not the mission Congress authorized 5 years ago. The President needs to ask Congress and the American people for approval to prosecute what seems to be a very different mission in Iraq. Proposed legislation to deauthorize the 2002 resolution would make a few things crystal clear. Our current mission in Iraq is over on October 11, 2007. Let me repeat that. The war in Iraq is over on October 11 of this year. After that, the President would have to make a new case for a new mission, one that more accurately reflects what the U.S. troops are now doing in Iraq. If he cannot make that case to Congress and the American people, then our troops need to come home. Now, we understand al-Qaida is going to try to exploit the situation in Iraq for their own purposes, and there are measures we can take to deal with that. We must not let Iraqi al-Qaida units get a foothold in the country, especially in the western part of Iraq. So I would support a no-fly zone in Iraq, which would ensure that the United States and our allies can keep reconnaissance eyes on efforts to restart terrorist training camps there. To fight the growing number of terrorist camps, we will need warships in the area and aircraft that can reach those al- Qaida targets. We must not hesitate to strike against al-Qaida. The safety of this country and the world depends on that. We need to continue to improve our ability to gather intelligence on the ground in Iraq, but we do not need and I will not support U.S. troops policing a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiite militias. I will not support our military personnel guarding bridges and disarming roadside bombs. It is in our national interest to fight al- Qaida but not this civil war. The mission in Iraq has changed, and the American people realize it. It is time the President did as well. In February of this year, I said the President must tell the American people what success means and how it should be quantified. If success means free elections in Iraq, then we should have been gone 2 years ago. If success means toppling Saddam Hussein, then we should have been gone 3 years ago. If it means something else, then the President must identify a clear and achievable outcome. At this point, that has not happened, and enough is enough. For 2 years, as a Montana State Senator, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, a Senator-elect, and a U.S. Senator, I have given the Commander in Chief the benefit of the doubt that he would tell Congress and the American people how to define success in Iraq and how he meant to achieve it. He has not done so. The President refuses to support our troops by keeping them in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight. They fight every day in a war with no plan and no definition of success, and, most importantly, they are dying every day in a war the American people do not want to be fighting. We and our troops deserve better. They deserve the truth. Since the President refuses to support the troops by developing a plan to bring them home, then we must and we should and we will. But above all, we must stand by our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. We support them wholeheartedly while they fight and support them for what they will endure after they get home from Iraq. It is on behalf of those troops and those who fought before them that I am cosponsoring the Webb amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak to amendment No. 1614, sponsored by Senators Byrd, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Salazar, Webb, and myself. The Energy bill we have been debating is going to bring us greater energy independence and clean up our energy supply to help combat climate change. This bill is clean and green and it will make great strides in developing clean energy sources and increasing efficiency. But we must admit we have done little in the bill to address America's largest energy resource and also one of our largest polluters--coal. Coal supplies over half of our electricity generation, it drives our economy and manufacturing and can be turned into a liquid transportation fuel to replace foreign oil. Coal is relatively cheap and easily accessible. We now have enough coal for 250 years if we keep using it at the same rate we are using it now. Not only are we going to keep using coal, but most energy experts predict we are going to use more of it into the future. We have to start doing better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions from coal. I do not believe the Government has been providing the right incentives to move the coal industry in the right direction. The amendment that I--and others I spoke of earlier--am offering today will provide Government grants for engineering and design of coal-to-liquid and coal gasification facilities. It will authorize direct loans for facilities if they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the petroleum equivalent, which, by the way, is the same requirement we use for biofuels. To qualify, a facility must show that it can and will both capture and store 75 percent of its carbon dioxide. We need these parameters because we need to start doing things better than we have done in the past if Government is going to be supporting these projects. There has been a lot of discussion in the last couple of days about coal-to-liquid fuels. I would rather get our energy from States such as Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, or Colorado than from the oil cartels in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the production of coal to liquids without capturing carbon dioxide emits over twice the amount of carbon dioxide than does petroleum, and climate change is as big a threat as the unstable countries where we buy our oil. When carbon is captured and safely stored, coal-to-liquid facilities and coal gasification plants can achieve carbon dioxide levels that are closer or better than a petroleum equivalent. If you combine the coal with biomass at the same facilities, you can reach emission levels that are far less than petroleum. The National Mining Association recently ran an editorial in the New York Times identifying the benefits of clean coal technologies and its implications for national security. The editorial is on this chart. In a nutshell, what Kraig Naasz, president and chief executive of the National Mining Association, said was that a coal-to-liquid facility with carbon capture and sequestration combined with the use of biomass could achieve life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions 46 percent below a petroleum equivalent. That is good news indeed. I believe our fuel sources are a national security concern, and we need to explore all safe and clean energy options to help break our addiction to foreign oil. Coat-to-liquid fuel is a part of that equation, and this amendment makes coal cleaner than petroleum when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is an issue I take very seriously. I want to leave this world for my children and grandchildren in as good of shape or better than my parents left it for me. Climate change is real. Our oceans are rising, our glaciers are melting, and wildly shifting weather patterns are causing more frequent hurricanes, dramatic snowstorms, and prolonged drought. I am a dryland farmer, and I have spent my entire life on the same piece of ground in Big Sandy, MT. As a farmer, you notice every little detail about the weather--moisture, temperature, when the plants bud, when they are ready for harvest. In recent years, something hasn't been right. The climate we have today is not the one that was there when I was a kid. We plant earlier than we used to, we harvest earlier, rain comes at different times, and the summers have become so hot and dry in Montana that the sky is filled with smoke from forest fires hundreds of miles away. Steps can be taken to reverse the effects of climate change and improve the energy options we have available. Coal is cheap, we have a lot of it, and I think we should use it. But we must learn lessons from how we have developed coal in the past. The Department of Energy says that there are 151 new or proposed coal powerplants on the way by 2030, and some of those are coal gasification facilities. I am committed to finding ways to make the next generation of coal plants better than the last. This bill encourages research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies. Carbon capture and storage may be our best option to reduce carbon emissions from coal. We even include a cost-share provision for carbon capture equipment that I sponsored with Senator Bingaman in the Energy Committee. But we have done little to give industry the incentives to employ these technologies on a large scale. Wall Street really has no interest in loaning money for clean coal facilities because there is no economic incentive to reduce emissions. This amendment provides direct loans for 100 percent of the equipment used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and up to 50 percent of the total project cost. Coal gasification technology is our best opportunity to prove the capture of CO2 on a massive scale and safely store it through an industrial process that gives us the products we need, such as fertilizers, plastics, electricity, and fuel. Carbon dioxide can be captured at a gasification facility, then compressed, piped away, and stored in geological formations, including oil and gas fields where they can increase the production of petroleum or CO2 can be used in products that facilities produce, such as fertilizers, chemicals, plastics, and fuel. The Syntroleum plant in North Dakota has been capturing their CO2 for 20 years and piping it 205 miles into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. They capture 5,000 tons of CO2 a day and sell the carbon to produce more oil. In Colorado, one company actually mines CO2 from carbon deposits in the ground and pipes it to Texas for enhanced oil recovery, and, I should add, this is done for profit. The amendment being offered today is a technology driver to move this industry into the next phase and help get the first few new generation facilities on the ground. Government should only provide backing to the best technologies to help spur a clean industry that can demonstrate an overall societal benefit. To be clear, industry will move forward with coal gasification projects and coal-to-liquid projects regardless of congressional actions, and plants have already been announced. But this is our opportunity to encourage these facilities to be clean and push the development of carbon capture and storage on a commercial and industrial scale. Coal-to-liquid projects have been proposed for Illinois, Ohio, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and the list goes on. These companies have proposed these projects without Government financing, but the emissions from these facilities are yet to be determined. The timing of this Energy bill and this amendment is critical because designs could be modified to fit the parameters of this amendment, and we can be assured that these projects move forward with the cleanest technology available. Industry will benefit if we set clear guidelines as to the standards we expect to be met for Government backing. Luckily, we have the science to back up our goals. A recent study from the Idaho National Labs proves that coal to liquids, when produced with carbon capture and biomass, can achieve life-cycle greenhouse gas reductions of over 40 percent from a petroleum equivalent. We see the bar graph with petroleum diesel being the baseline. If we look across at the fourth column, if we combine coal with 30 percent biomass to perform coal to liquids, we can see a tremendous reduction in CO2. Coal gasification with carbon capture and biomass is a vast improvement over our current use of coal. Congress is at a crucial point where we can help drive these facilities toward the best technology available. This amendment is a challenge to industry, but it is a challenge that is technologically available and can and should be met. Rentech, one of the strongest advocates of coal-to-liquid technology, proved my point in front of the Senate Finance Committee last April when they showed the members of the committee the potential of the technology on which they are working. What they said was that they agree that as carbon capture reaches the levels we spell out in this bill, combined with biomass, coal to liquids is far better than what we are doing currently. I believe this amendment will drive a new, clean, and green coal-to- liquids industry toward startup and help offset our foreign dependence on imported oil. Besides fuel, it will make cheaper fertilizers, chemicals, and plastics. Adopting this amendment will be a technology driver that is good for industry and is good for this country. I urge this body to support clean and green coal development. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Byrd.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to amendment 1628, the Bunning amendment, for a number of reasons. No. 1, this is a mandate to develop the gallonage from coal to liquids. I don't think it is the right direction to go. This amendment--folks have been using apples and oranges to compare greenhouse gases. The Bunning amendment says coal to liquids will be 20 percent better than gasoline, but coal to liquids does not produce gasoline-equivalent fuel, they produce the equivalent of diesel fuel, and that is 150 percent higher in greenhouse gas emissions than diesel produced from petroleum. The third thing, it is technology-limiting. Fuels produced from coal are only allowed under the Bunning amendment rather than articles such as fertilizer, chemicals, and plastics, as my amendment does. Finally, there is no path to coal's future in a carbon-constrained world with the Bunning amendment--no requirement to deal with the carbon dioxide produced in the coal-to-liquids plants, no technology incentive to keep coal viable into the future, which we absolutely need. If and when our greenhouse gases are regulated, these plants will not be economic, and the cost to the consumers of the Bunning mandate will soar. I have seen many signs up today, placards, talking about how coal-to- liquid technology is automatically less than petroleum. That is not correct unless you have carbon capture. The Bunning amendment does not allow for carbon capture. My amendment does. With that, I would certainly suggest and request that the body vote against the Bunning amendment and support the Tester amendment No. 1614. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER. I just want to talk about my amendment, 1614, as long as we have time to do that, very quickly recap it because I think it is important that we know the facts. First of all, we have enough coal in this country, if it is used at the current rate, to last us for 250 years. We need to develop it responsibly. This amendment for coal to liquids will develop it responsibly. What it does is it provides grants and loans for clean coal technology. Let me tell you the parameters because some folks have said this can't be achieved. In front of the Senate Finance Committee, it was testified that it is entirely capable, with the technology we have today, to have 85 percent carbon capture. This amendment requires 75 percent carbon capture. The National Mining Association said that with coal to liquids, adding some biomass with the coal, we could achieve 46 percent less in life cycle greenhouse gases than comparable petroleum--46 percent less. This amendment requires 20 percent less. This amendment is entirely doable by the industry. If we want to develop our coal resources in a manner that meets the needs of consumers as well as being able to develop our coal resources in a responsible way that would not trash the environment when climate change is such a huge issue in the world, we need to step forth and adopt this amendment. I could go into the amendment further and talk about the potential of replacing foreign oil. I could talk about how it is a win-win situation for the country overall, as far as achieving energy independence, as we push this bill forward that deals with renewables such as biofuels and wind and solar and geothermal. The fact is, with this amendment there are no bogeymen. It is achievable by the industry, and it should be adopted if we are going to lead this country down the road of energy independence, a road that will allow the climate change issue to be put to bed. By the way, if we pass this amendment, I fully believe, with the two powerplants a month China is putting on board at 500 megawatts each, we can also help lead China down a road to clean coal technology. I would appreciate a ``yes'' vote on amendment 1614. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, what this amendment does is gives loans for equipment to capture and sequester carbon from coal-to-liquid technology. It also allows for loans to construct the plant. The Federal Government has the opportunity right now to push coal to liquids forward with some dollars. Also, what happens with this amendment is--and these are entirely achievable parameters--75 percent of the carbon would be captured and sequestered, and it would be 20 percent less than life-cycle greenhouse gases from petroleum. It works for this country in making us more energy independent and it works for the global warming issue to make sure we get our hands wrapped around that and it is progress in the proper way for energy development. It is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, the United Mining Association, and Dow Chemical. This amendment is achievable, entirely achievable. The industry testified in the Senate Finance Committee that they could capture and sequester 85 percent. This amendment does it at 75 percent. I encourage the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I know there is at least one amendment pending on the floor. I want to speak about a different amendment, but I am not going to call it up. I only want to talk about it with hopes that it will be called up in the near future and be given the kind of consideration we do here in the Senate, and hopefully get it put on this energy bill we are discussing. It is the geothermal initiative amendment. I first thank my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Reid, Murkowski, Stevens, Salazar, Akaka, Sanders, Snowe, and Hatch for cosponsoring this amendment. It is all about geothermal energy. It is what geothermal energy can be as far as a key component to our Nation's energy security, and how it can help contribute to a national renewable electricity standard. I have to point out that when we talk about the RPS amendment, the renewable portfolio standard amendment Senator Bingaman has, it seems as though the conversation always revolves around wind when, in fact, we ought to be talking about a lot more than wind. One of those things is geothermal energy. Geothermal energy is something that is clean, it is efficient, it is, in fact, renewable and can fight climate change. Once again, this amendment will do several things to help our geothermal energy potential: It supports research and development, development and demonstration of commercial applications of geothermal energy projects, it supports State cooperative development programs, and it supports research and development of commercially viable applications. It advances high pressure and high temperature drilling so we can get into the zones that best have geothermal potential, and it prioritizes discovering and characterization of geothermal resources. If you take a look at the map we have here of the United States, you take a look at this, and in the light green, or the lime green, I should say, is where we have less ability to have geothermal activity. The darker the green into the orange and red is where we have more potential. Through this bill we can help develop that potential and through an assessment determine where most of our ability to get geothermal energy is. I think it is quite extensive. As you can see, it is nationwide. This amendment also has a national geothermal assessment component to it. The last time we had a comprehensive assessment for geothermal energy was back in 1978. We have got far better technology now, and we need to do it right this time. Unfortunately, this assessment program did not receive funding to complete the assessment. But this amendment will provide the funding to give us the assessment. Take a look at the map of the United States. Take a look at the map of Montana. You can see once again we have tremendous ability for geothermal development here and in the Southwest. I live right here. It is blue. I can tell you from oil wells that were drilled over 60 or 70 years ago, there is geothermal potential there, but we do not know about it because we have not done the assessment for so long. It doesn't even show up. So there are a lot of areas around the country, I believe, where geothermal will work and help create our energy independence in a long-term energy policy. This bill also gives assistance to academic institutions and State governmental agencies, particularly in the intermountain west and Alaska. These are institutions that are teaming up with businesses to get pipes in the ground. Ultimately, we will have the ability, through this amendment, to maximize our ability to have geothermal energy to contribute to our electricity supply, heating supply, and other energy needs in this country. A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to meet with President Grimsson of Iceland. Twenty-seven percent of their electricity comes from geothermal resources. Of course, in Iceland that makes sense. Eighty-seven percent of their homes are heated with geothermal heat. They even lay pipes in the ground to melt the roads and keep them free of snow in the wintertime. It is something that has already been done and that we can do here in this country. It does not apply just to Montana, it applies to the entire country, and we can have our geothermal resources developed. Montana has great geothermal resources, but we need to have an overall geothermal policy that maximizes our ability to draw energy from the heat in the ground, not only in places such as Montana, but also in places such as Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, Maine, and New Hampshire, and just about every State in the Union. I will tell you this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It is innovative, in that we have not even begun to tap our potential for geothermal energy in this country, and it is clean. I would encourage all of the Members of this body, when this geothermal amendment comes to the floor, that we give it good consideration and attach it to the bill so we can have geothermal energy be a significant part of our energy future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. I appreciate that. I look forward to having him in ``big sky'' country anytime he wants. I rise in strong support of the Bingaman amendment. Change is difficult, if you are young, if you are old, and oftentimes change is difficult in politics. But what we are talking about is a national energy policy, a long-term national energy policy that people and investors and consumers can depend upon. Within this national energy policy, there is an amendment called the Bingaman amendment that deals with the renewable energy standard. Interestingly enough, back in 2005, in a former life when I was in the Montana Senate, I carried a bill for a renewable energy standard in Montana that increased the renewable energy portfolio by 15 percent by 2015. Let me tell you what happened there. The important parts of this bill were 8 percent by 2008 renewable energy in the portfolio, 10 percent by 2010, and 15 percent by 2015. That was the bill that we carried in the Montana legislature. What happened was, the first year they met the 8 percent. They will meet the 10 percent by next year, 2 years ahead of schedule. It is predicted by 2011, the independent-owned utilities will meet the 15-percent threshold, 4 years early. The fact is, this amendment is not cutting edge. This amendment is what is right for the country, renewable energy. Everybody talks about wind. Wind is an important part of renewable energy. But geothermal is also another one. We haven't even tapped into the geothermal resources we have, and they are massive. That is a renewable energy. Biomass, small bore timber, wood waste products, crop byproducts to help power generators, that is renewable energy. Landfill gas is another one we haven't tapped into, a renewable energy. Electricity created by solar, by the Sun, is a renewable energy. Biofuels such as camelina, such as biodiesel, powering generators, that is renewable energy. Make no mistake about it, when we talk about renewable energy, it is not just wind--although wind is an important factor--it is many different avenues we can go down that suit some parts of the country better than others. By the way, back in 2005, when we were dead last in wind energy production, that little renewable portfolio standard bill we passed took Montana from 50th to 15th in the Nation in renewable energy production. We see transmission lines being built in the State, something that wasn't done before. We saw a whole lot of wind generators go up in rural Montana, where jobs are most needed, where economic development is most needed, where we develop a tax base for our schools and counties in those areas that have seen depopulation, giving these areas hope. What we are talking about is a long-term policy that will invest in America's consumers and this country. In the process, it will result in a 50-percent increase in wind generation, a 300-percent increase in biomass generation, a 500-percent increase in solar power, and it will reduce emissions by some 222 million tons per year by 2030. It is cheap. It is clean. It is a solution for the climate change issue. It diversifies our production as far as where the energy is produced. It diversifies the energy portfolio which is critically important. If the Members of this body want to help move this country forward, help make this country energy independent and address the global warming issue, I recommend a ``yes'' vote on the Bingaman amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the good Senator from Vermont for his comments. I appreciate them very much. I think they are on the mark. I would like to address amendment No. 1236, the Baucus-Tester amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Akaka, Sununu, Leahy, and Collins be added as cosponsors.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be recognized for 10 minutes following my remarks.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I am proud to offer this amendment 1236 with my colleague, Senator Baucus, as well as the Senators I just listed as cosponsors. It strikes a portion of the bill that relates to the REAL ID Act. These REAL ID Act provisions are not central to the bill. We all want secure documents, but REAL ID is not needed to meet heightened security requirements. If we leave these provisions in place, the result of this legislation will be to bully the States into accepting something they do not want. If we do not pass the Baucus- Tester amendment, we will expand the REAL ID Act and we will impose significant new costs on employers, open up prospective employees' most sensitive personal information to theft, and create new administrative headaches for workers, employers, and State governments alike. Do not misunderstand, it is right for employers to have to do their part to make sure they do not hire illegal immigrants, and if they do hire illegal immigrants, we need to penalize them. But what we do not want to do is impose a massive new tax on employers, and that is exactly what this bill would do in its current form. This bill requires employers to use REAL ID-compliant documents to verify prospective employees' immigration status, and that means employers will have to link into the national database that REAL ID will create. If, as expected, the Department of Homeland Security mandates that employers confirm the biometrics of the employee, employers will need to purchase expensive biometric card-reader machines and train employees and staff on how to use them. This will amount to a massive new tax on businesses, and these costs will be on top of other mandates employers will pay to screen their workers and get linked into the national ID database created by the proposed employment eligibility verification system. Our amendment would also lift a burden off potential employees. This bill mandates that every potential employee present a REAL ID driver's license by June 1, 2013, to begin every new job. State government organizations such as the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures have said these States need at least until 2018 to implement REAL ID. This means many States will not even be able to provide their citizens with the documents they would need under the mandates of this immigration bill by 2013. What happens then? Are the people in these States not allowed to get work? That is what will happen if you leave this provision in the bill. Sixteen States have passed legislation or resolutions opposing REAL ID or preventing the States from being a part of REAL ID. So unless the Baucus-Tester amendment is adopted, individuals who live in these States may not be able to get jobs because they will not have the REAL ID-compliant documents. Finally, this provision threatens workers' privacy. REAL ID creates the first true national ID card system by aggregating every adult's most sensitive, personally identifiable information in one place without any protections for the data or limitations on who can access it. We are going to give to every employer in America access to this system. This invites identity theft on the part of unscrupulous employees and government workers with access to this REAL ID database. So we know that including REAL ID in this bill is a recipe for disaster. It will be harder to hire folks, it will be more expensive to hire them, and it may even be impossible to hire many people. It opens employee personal identification information to identity theft. We can remove this section from the bill and still have a strong employment eligibility verification system. We can lift a significant burden from employers and employees, and we can limit the adverse effects of this bill on States. The Baucus-Tester amendment will do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise here today to introduce the Biofuel Crop Insurance Act to provide a safety net to innovative American farmers. America's addiction to foreign oil is one of the greatest threats to our national security and our economy. At the same time climate change is threatening the world as we know it. We are experiencing wildly shifting weather patterns, prolonged drought, intense hurricanes and melting glaciers and icecaps. We need to do something to change our energy sources to clean and domestic options, and our farmers and rural communities are leading the way. Unfortunately, some of the best potential crops for biofuel production lack the same government safety nets like crop insurance and loans that our commodity crops have. This legislation is designed to change that by allowing the USDA to expedite the process for approving insurance to dedicated biofuel crops. In the last few years the ethanol industry has experienced explosive growth. Ethanol is good for farmers, rural communities and our consumers. I for one would rather buy my fuel from farmers in the Midwest than dictators in the Mideast. Corn will continue to be king of ethanol for some time. But we need to start using other crops for ethanol and biodiesel production, because if there is one thing that our recent energy crisis has taught us it is that diversity is critical. We need to expand the use of crops that don't compete with our food system that can be grown in different parts of the country, are more affordable, and require fewer inputs than corn. In Montana, farmers are planting an oil seed crop called camelina because it can be grown on marginal lands, with few inputs, and high profits. Its oil can be crushed and made into biodiesel on farms and small communities' rural landscapes. Camelina can be used in rotation with other crops such as wheat and barley and bring new money and new development to rural States like Montana, Washington, Idaho, and the Dakotas. Montana State University is one of several academic institutions that have done extensive research into the crop in regards to what it needs to grow, where to grow it, and what farmers can expect it to produce. All their tests are positive and this year we expect that up to 20,000 acres of camelina will be planted in Montana alone. Unfortunately, farmers are hesitant to seize this opportunity because they lack an insurance safety net, and their banks won't loan them money to plant crops that aren't insured. Being a farmer myself, I know how agriculture is beholden to Mother Nature. A dry year, a bad hail storm or a late frost can destroy a year's worth of work. Farmers need safety nets, not handouts. Crop insurance is a market mechanism that can mitigate risk for farmers. The legislation I'm introducing today will be directly responsible for extensive growth of camelina, and the emergence of a biodiesel industry for States like Montana. If I wasn't here right now, I would be sitting on my tractor in Big Sandy, MT, planting oil seed crops on my farm and learning how to process and crush oil seeds to make biodiesel. I use 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year on my farm, and anxiously await the day when I can use fuel grown on my land or bought from my neighbors instead of imported from overseas. This bill sets up a pilot insurance program for dedicated biofuel crops that displace petroleum products, and provides loans for stabilization of farm income and marketing assistance. It also creates grants for research into planting and harvesting techniques and grants to study the use of biofuel meal used as animal feeds. I believe this bill will spark a biodiesel industry across the Northern Great Plains and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation as it moves forward.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise here today to introduce the Biofuel Crop Insurance Act to provide a safety net to innovative American farmers. America's addiction to foreign oil is one of the greatest threats to our national security and our economy. At the same time climate change is threatening the world as we know it. We are experiencing wildly shifting weather patterns, prolonged drought, intense hurricanes and melting glaciers and icecaps. We need to do something to change our energy sources to clean and domestic options, and our farmers and rural communities are leading the way. Unfortunately, some of the best potential crops for biofuel production lack the same government safety nets like crop insurance and loans that our commodity crops have. This legislation is designed to change that by allowing the USDA to expedite the process for approving insurance to dedicated biofuel crops. In the last few years the ethanol industry has experienced explosive growth. Ethanol is good for farmers, rural communities and our consumers. I for one would rather buy my fuel from farmers in the Midwest than dictators in the Mideast. Corn will continue to be king of ethanol for some time. But we need to start using other crops for ethanol and biodiesel production, because if there is one thing that our recent energy crisis has taught us it is that diversity is critical. We need to expand the use of crops that don't compete with our food system that can be grown in different parts of the country, are more affordable, and require fewer inputs than corn. In Montana, farmers are planting an oil seed crop called camelina because it can be grown on marginal lands, with few inputs, and high profits. Its oil can be crushed and made into biodiesel on farms and small communities' rural landscapes. Camelina can be used in rotation with other crops such as wheat and barley and bring new money and new development to rural States like Montana, Washington, Idaho, and the Dakotas. Montana State University is one of several academic institutions that have done extensive research into the crop in regards to what it needs to grow, where to grow it, and what farmers can expect it to produce. All their tests are positive and this year we expect that up to 20,000 acres of camelina will be planted in Montana alone. Unfortunately, farmers are hesitant to seize this opportunity because they lack an insurance safety net, and their banks won't loan them money to plant crops that aren't insured. Being a farmer myself, I know how agriculture is beholden to Mother Nature. A dry year, a bad hail storm or a late frost can destroy a year's worth of work. Farmers need safety nets, not handouts. Crop insurance is a market mechanism that can mitigate risk for farmers. The legislation I'm introducing today will be directly responsible for extensive growth of camelina, and the emergence of a biodiesel industry for States like Montana. If I wasn't here right now, I would be sitting on my tractor in Big Sandy, MT, planting oil seed crops on my farm and learning how to process and crush oil seeds to make biodiesel. I use 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year on my farm, and anxiously await the day when I can use fuel grown on my land or bought from my neighbors instead of imported from overseas. This bill sets up a pilot insurance program for dedicated biofuel crops that displace petroleum products, and provides loans for stabilization of farm income and marketing assistance. It also creates grants for research into planting and harvesting techniques and grants to study the use of biofuel meal used as animal feeds. I believe this bill will spark a biodiesel industry across the Northern Great Plains and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation as it moves forward.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the conference report on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill we passed early this afternoon. This bill needs to be signed by the President. It will do a lot of good for a lot of people in this great country. It will not only help our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also millions of Americans who have suffered over the last year due to drought and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This bill has nearly $7 billion for cleanup and recovery on the gulf coast, which is, 18 months later, still dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There is $1.8 billion for veterans health care in this supplemental, to give our veterans the care they deserve when they return from serving our Nation. It contains $3.5 billion for agricultural assistance, assistance that is desperately needed. I have heard from several farmers in Montana about the drought and how it has devastated their farms and how they are barely hanging on. Tom Lightner, a farmer and rancher from north of Choteau, MT, grows wheat, barley, and alfalfa, and he used to run some cattle. But the continuing drought has hurt his operation. The reservoir near his operation, Bynum Reservoir, has been almost empty for the past 5 years because of this drought, and in 2005 Tom had to sell off his 120 head of cattle he used to run on his ranch. In February of this year, Tom wrote me this letter. What it says is: I am writing to you in need of your assistance. I own and operate a small farm and ranch north of Choteau. Because of the continuing drought conditions in this area, making it from one year to the next has been a real challenge. In my present circumstances, it may become impossible [to stay in business]. Now Tom is in danger of losing his crop insurance and is looking for help from me, and from us, and from the President, to help him through these difficult times. Another farmer in Montana, from Dagmar, wrote about conditions last year during the growing season. He writes that it is a foggy morning, no meaningful precipitation, but it cooled down some, which is good news in the heat of summer with little moisture. But the damage was done. Some of the late seeding re-crop had the top half of the head burnt right off. What does that mean, in a nutshell? He is not going to cut much of a crop and it is not going to have much quality when he does get it in the bin. What does that mean in reality? That means no money to pay expenses, to pay for insurance, to pay for heating, to pay for seeding costs; no money to buy groceries, to pay that operating loan or mortgage loan. That is why it is so critically important that the President of the United States sign this supplemental. Farmers and ranchers in Montana and throughout this country have suffered long enough. They have dedicated their lives to feeding the world, and it is the very least we can do to provide them with the assistance they need to keep going. Before I finish, I want to talk a little bit about our great men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have done everything we have asked and they have done it very well. This supplemental bill also gives our troops all the funding they need, and more, to meet the needs not addressed by the President's request. It provides a plan to get our troops out of the Middle East in this civil war they find themselves engaged in, and back to fighting the real war, the war on terrorism. It sets a goal, not a deadline, of being out of Iraq by the spring of 2008. But it allows our troops to continue to train the Iraqi security forces, to conduct operations against terrorist groups, and to protect United States assets. This is hardly handcuffing the President of this country. This is a responsible plan to continue our fight against terrorism while getting our troops out of this Iraqi civil war. For these reasons, I urge the President of the United States to sign this emergency supplemental into law. No more excuses, sign the supplemental. Our troops, our farmers, the people of this country, deserve no less. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today my home State of Montana becomes the fourth State in the Nation to declare its opposition to the REAL ID Act by enacting binding legislation that opts Montana out of REAL ID. With it, my State is opting out of the onerous regulation, blatant invasion of privacy, and the high cost of compliance that will come from implementing REAL ID. I congratulate my Governor, Brian Schweitzer, and both houses of the Montana State Legislature. Both houses of the legislature approved this legislation unanimously. Thirteen other States have anti-REAL ID legislation that has passed one of the houses of the legislature. In Montana and the rest of these States, opposition to this poorly constructed law is bipartisan. That is why I am pleased to once again offer my support for the Identification Security Enhancement Act, introduced by Senator Akaka and Senator Sununu--another bipartisan show of opposition to the REAL ID Act. Why is there so much opposition to REAL ID beyond the beltway? It comes down to three reasons. First, the REAL ID Act puts massive new Federal regulations on the States. From new databases and fraud monitoring, to new network and data storage capacity, the States will be tasked with an enormous range of new regulations and requirements. Once REAL ID becomes effective, every State's Department of Motor Vehicles will have to play immigration official by reconciling discrepancies in social security numbers with the Social Security Administration. DMVs will have to require proof of ``legal presence'' in the United States from immigrants. I am for a strong immigration policy. I believe we ought to enforce our borders and enforce the laws we have on the books. But it is completely unreasonable for the Federal Government to put that job on the Montana Department of Motor Vehicles, or any other State's DMV. And these new regulations carry with them a hefty pricetag. DHS now estimates that Real ID will cost the states and their taxpayers $23.1 billion. Finally, REAL ID raises some very real privacy concerns. Data mining and data theft have become all too common phrases for too many Americans who resent having their personal information collected by the government, or worse, having it stolen from the government. We all recall the massive potential problems that arose from the theft of personal data from the VA last year. I have no doubt that the databases called for in REAL ID will be an even greater target for data thieves. We can do better than REAL ID. Senator Akaka's legislation shows that. Today, Montana adds its voice to those calling for the Federal Government to go back to the drawing board. Let's listen to what Montana has to say.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that will go a long ways toward meeting our Nation's obligations to our rural veterans. The Disabled Fairness Act will make a real improvement in the lives of America's rural veterans--more than 17,000 of whom live in my State. For many veterans who live far from a VA hospital or community health center, transportation remains the single biggest obstacle to care. Today, disabled veterans are eligible to have only a small fraction of their transportation costs reimbursed. They must pay the first $18 per month out of their own pocket. And after that, they receive reimbursement at the rate of just 11 cents per mile--less than one- quarter of the current rate of 48.5 cents per mile for Government employees. The reimbursement rate has not been changed since 1977. That is unacceptable. In Montana, we have several very good VA health clinics, as well as one of the best hospitals in the VA system, the Ft. Harrison Hospital in Helena. But the smaller clinics simply cannot provide all the services that Ft. Harrison offers. That is no complaint against these clinics, it is just a fact. So when a disabled veteran in my State gets in his car and drives 200 miles from Havre to the Ft. Harrison VA hospital in Helena to receive treatment for an injury he suffered while defending our country, he will be reimbursed $4. On the way back, he will be eligible to be reimbursed $22. That is $26 total for a trip that the Federal Government estimates will actually cost $194. That is a slap in the face to someone whose life has been fundamentally altered by the wounds they suffered on the field of battle. In the last month, AAA reports that the price of gas in Montana has increased 36 cents over the last month. That means disabled veterans are spending much more of their own money to get to a VA hospital, especially in places like Montana, where a trip to the hospital can mean a journey of hundreds of miles. The Disabled Veterans Fairness Act ends this practice. My bill repeals the $18 per month deductible that disabled veterans must satisfy before they can be eligible for reimbursement for mileage traveled to and from a VA hospital for treatment. The bill also raises the reimbursement rate from the current level of 11 cents per mile to the prevailing rate for Federal employees, as determined by the General Services Administration. I also want to thank Senator Salazar for his advice on this legislation. I am proud to have him as a cosponsor. He has worked so hard to improve the lives of rural veterans, and I look forward to supporting his efforts in the coming months as well.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation that will go a long ways toward meeting our Nation's obligations to our rural veterans. The Disabled Fairness Act will make a real improvement in the lives of America's rural veterans--more than 17,000 of whom live in my State. For many veterans who live far from a VA hospital or community health center, transportation remains the single biggest obstacle to care. Today, disabled veterans are eligible to have only a small fraction of their transportation costs reimbursed. They must pay the first $18 per month out of their own pocket. And after that, they receive reimbursement at the rate of just 11 cents per mile--less than one- quarter of the current rate of 48.5 cents per mile for Government employees. The reimbursement rate has not been changed since 1977. That is unacceptable. In Montana, we have several very good VA health clinics, as well as one of the best hospitals in the VA system, the Ft. Harrison Hospital in Helena. But the smaller clinics simply cannot provide all the services that Ft. Harrison offers. That is no complaint against these clinics, it is just a fact. So when a disabled veteran in my State gets in his car and drives 200 miles from Havre to the Ft. Harrison VA hospital in Helena to receive treatment for an injury he suffered while defending our country, he will be reimbursed $4. On the way back, he will be eligible to be reimbursed $22. That is $26 total for a trip that the Federal Government estimates will actually cost $194. That is a slap in the face to someone whose life has been fundamentally altered by the wounds they suffered on the field of battle. In the last month, AAA reports that the price of gas in Montana has increased 36 cents over the last month. That means disabled veterans are spending much more of their own money to get to a VA hospital, especially in places like Montana, where a trip to the hospital can mean a journey of hundreds of miles. The Disabled Veterans Fairness Act ends this practice. My bill repeals the $18 per month deductible that disabled veterans must satisfy before they can be eligible for reimbursement for mileage traveled to and from a VA hospital for treatment. The bill also raises the reimbursement rate from the current level of 11 cents per mile to the prevailing rate for Federal employees, as determined by the General Services Administration. I also want to thank Senator Salazar for his advice on this legislation. I am proud to have him as a cosponsor. He has worked so hard to improve the lives of rural veterans, and I look forward to supporting his efforts in the coming months as well.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for allowing me to speak. I also thank the good Senator from North Dakota. Amendment No. 464 Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 464, the Grassley- Dorgan amendment on farm payment limitations, making those limitations max out at $250,000. That is a quarter of a million dollars. That is how much money that is going to be maxed out for individual family farmers to get. That is a reasonable request. I think it makes the farm bill more defendable to the American people. I am a family farmer. I understand family farmers are the backbone of this country. They keep our food security there so we do not have people going hungry. What the farm program has meant to do, and has always been meant to be, is a safety net for farmers so when market prices drop they have that safety net to depend upon. There is not one farmer I know of who does not want to get their income from the marketplace. So we need to keep it that way. We need to encourage fair trade deals. We need to encourage more competition in the marketplace. We need to make sure our freight rates are, what I would call, not abusive, if we are going to keep family farmers on the land. Some 30 years ago, the student body in the high school I went to in a farming community had 160 kids in it. Today, that same student body is less than half that size because we have not had a farm bill that has worked for the farmers. This amendment makes sense because it puts a cap of $250,000 on the benefits from farm program subsidies and eliminates those big agribusinesses that have been taking money they do not need, quite frankly. They do not need that safety net that the farm program subsidies provide in our farm program. So with that, Mr. President, I ask that all the Members of the Senate support amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I doubt I will use it all, but I thank the Presiding Officer very much. Mr. President, I am here to address S.J. Res. 9. I am glad we have gotten to a point where we can debate this war in Iraq and vote. That is what we are all sent here to do. This war did not start yesterday. We are 4 years into this bloody war, at a cost of $2 billion a week, monetarily, and nearly $500 billion since we started 4 years ago. More importantly, we have lost nearly 3,200 of our Nation's best people. Soldiers, sailors, and marines have made the ultimate sacrifice; 17 from my home State of Montana. Twenty-four thousand more have been seriously wounded. An entire generation in this country has been marked by the injuries in this battlefield. Yesterday, the Pentagon admitted something we have known for a long time: that our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops. As unclear as the President's plan for Iraq has been, our mission for our troops is more blurred. The original mission was to find weapons of mass destruction, to topple Saddam Hussein, to train the Iraqi troops, and to turn Iraq into a model to transform the Middle East. Our troops have done an incredible job. They and their families have given far more than most of us can imagine. It truly is time now to take a different direction. Our troops need a plan for success and a clear mission. The current plan of ``stay the course'' has failed. We now have an open commitment with no end in sight. We need a new direction, and we owe it not only to our troops but we owe it to the people of this country. I strongly support the legislation put forth by Majority Leader Reid. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. It is a good first step-- finally--to put an end to this war. Also, it is a good first step to the political and diplomatic solution this war needs to have happen to end this war. This measure directly addresses my biggest concerns in Iraq. I support the legislation because it is a first step. We can begin redeployment of troops with the goal of removing most of those U.S. troops by March 31, 2008. It requires Iraqis to take an active role in their future, which is critically important. Also, as was pointed out last week, we cannot win every conflict with bullets. This forces Iraq to move forward toward a political and diplomatic solution. This legislation focuses our mission and responsibly ends the war within 1 year, and after March 31, 2008, remaining American troops will still be there to protect American and coalition interests, to still continue to train these Iraqi forces, and, most importantly, to seek out and bring the terrorists to justice. The fact is, this war has taken our eye off the war on terror. Osama bin Laden still runs free. We do not know where he is. I wholeheartedly support this legislation and will vote for it. The combined effort of this legislation will allow Iraq to stand on its own two feet. I urge my colleagues to look beyond partisan politics and vote for a long overdue change of course for this 4-year-old war. We cannot afford this war monetarily or from a people standpoint. It is time to pass S.J. Res. 9. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of three Montanans, three true public servants and American heroes who passed away last week in my home State of Montana. Today, Senator Baucus and I grieve with the city of Great Falls and the State of Montana. I ask that we keep the families of the three victims of a Mercy Flight air ambulance crash in our thoughts and prayers. Their colleagues at Benefis Hospital in Great Falls and across my State are mourning, remembering, and honoring the lives of Vince Kirol, Darcy Dengel, and Paul Erickson. Vince, Darcy, and Paul died when their plane went down on a routine flight from Great Falls to Bozeman Tuesday night to pick up a patient. I ask that we in this body hold these three in highest esteem as public servants who selflessly risked their own lives to help others. Vince Kirol was a pilot for 40 years. He flew for Mercy Flight the last 12 of those years. Vince has left an everlasting footprint on Montana. Darcy Dengel, a registered flight nurse, was only 27 years of age. She was engaged to be married to a Great Falls police officer. Darcy will not be forgotten. Paul Erickson was a Great Falls firefighter and paramedic. We will never forget the service Paul left behind. It has changed lives forever. In this body, we speak often of the value of public service. These three Montanans lived it every day. Too often, we are reminded of the sacrifices of our first responders, firefighters, police officers, nurses, and doctors. I ask my colleagues and all Americans to take a moment, when we can, to thank those who put their lives on the line serving this country at home. We owe them so much. With great respect for these fine three Montanans, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the sessions of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purposes of the hearing is to discuss climate change research and scientific integrity.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 10 a.m. to mark up an original bill entitled ``Public Transportation Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007;'' immediately following the executive session, the Committee will meet in open session to conduct a hearing on ``Preserving the American Dream: Predatory Lending Practices and Home Foreclosures.''

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the President's Proposed budget for FY 2008 for the Department of Energy.