Combating Autism Act of 2006

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.

Just last week, we made a unanimous consent request to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. That means Members from both sides of the aisle and both ends of the building have agreed to the language in this reauthorization. It passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce last week. However, Senators from three States are blocking the vote that would speed reauthorization programs that provide life-sparing treatment to individuals suffering from HIV and

I am sorry to hear we have an objection. We need to find a way to work through this objection. I have been working desperately across the aisle with Senator Kennedy, who has been joining me in this effort to help get it out of committee. We have been trying to find a way that the formula would work. One of the ways was to include in the bill 3 years of hold harmless for them to finish updating their system to the point where if they truly have the HIV numbers, they will truly get the money. If they don't have the HIV numbers, yes, they will lose the money.

Now, I don't know if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that our Ryan White reauthorization bill increases the funding for Minneapolis by $2 million and $2.5 million for the whole State. It is a net benefactor. There have been increases in HIV and AIDS cases in Minnesota, and this would move money to where the cases are. That is where the numbers show that his city and State would be significant beneficiaries.

I have a lot of statistics I can go through, but I wonder if the Senator is also aware that these increases are due to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS in the funding formula and that Minnesota has more HIV cases.

Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification.

I will ask the Senator for his help. He said he would vote for the bill. Anything we can do to move this forward. We have put a 3-year hold harmless in there for everyone.

On September 30, the world falls apart for a number of people. California, for one, will lose $18.5 million of their funding. There are a number of big losers. There are no big losers if we pass the bill, provided the numbers back up what they have.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. The increase in knowledge that I am sure he has created across the country--and also the

comments of the Senator from Oklahoma--both of them have made an excellent case for why we need to do this. We need to do it immediately. We need to do it for people who have HIV/AIDS. I would note that the person who raised the objection to us adopting the bill is not from one of the three States that have a hold on the bill. I would hope those people would take a look at the situation in their State, and take a look at the fact they are getting more than the average number of funds being expended on patients across the rest of the country, and see that the surpluses their States are running at the end of the year greatly exceed the rather minute loss they would have, and that they would agree for us to move forward on this bill and get it in place before that September 30 deadline that is going to be devastating to 13 States that will lose money for having done the right thing.

Now, having said that, I know there will be people who will say the Republicans cannot get anything done. Well, that particular issue, and many others are not Republican issues. They are issues of the United States. And that is one on which we worked across the aisle and had a great deal of agreement on. And I have to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member on my committee, for the extreme work he did to help us find, among the thousands of formulas we looked at, the one that was the most fair so it would follow the patients. I do appreciate the work he has helped us do in the committee during the year.

Accomplishments of the Help Committee

Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about what the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done this year. This Ryan White reauthorization is extremely important, but it is not the only bill we have been working on. Because of the way we have done our work, some people may not be aware of what has been done. In fact, I know that to be the case.

This is a committee that has worked across the aisle. When you work across the aisle, a lot of times you can work out many of the difficulties, and when you work out the difficulties, there is not a big floor debate. And when there is not a big floor debate, there is nothing for the media to write up about the blood; consequently, it does not get coverage. So I want to correct that here today, and I would like to discuss the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's accomplishments for the 109th Congress.

We have heard some claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. Well, I am here to assure American workers, retirees, students, and parents that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done a great deal to help you live more secure, productive, and healthy lives. Of course, we have more to do, but I am proud that during a time of intense partisanship on Capitol Hill, the HELP Committee has produced a lengthy list of legislative accomplishments.

Looking back over the past 2 years, most of these victories materialized when Senators were willing to work across party lines and across the Capitol to put finding a solution in front of exploiting an issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of bills and reports filed by the HELP Committee in the 109th Congress be printed in the Record

Mr. President, I joined the HELP Committee when I was first elected to the Senate in 1997. It was natural for me because of my small business background as an owner of family shoe stores. I had firsthand experience with burdensome government regulations, inadequate health care coverage for my workers, and adversarial workplace safety laws. I was energized about finding common sense solutions rather than more Washington bureaucracy.

Now, another reason I joined the HELP Committee is because its broad jurisdiction touches nearly every American.

Now, there were a lot of vacancies on the committee when I signed up. I asked why there were so many vacancies, and I was told, well, that is a contentious committee. I thought I knew what contentious committees were because I served on the labor committee in Wyoming. I found out that there is another level of contentious. I wanted to work with my colleagues to find smart solutions that would address some of the most important challenges faced by my constituents in Wyoming and, of course, other people across the country. I came from Wyoming as a firm believer in my 80-20 rule. The way that rule works is that we can usually find agreement on 80 percent of any issue. We agree across the aisle on about 80 percent the issues that comes up. Now, we are probably never going to reach agreement on the remaining 20 percent.

Unfortunately, for America, what they get to watch on any bill is the debate on the 20 percent we don't agree on, and probably will never compromise on. That is what makes this body seem so contentious--the 20 percent that we don't agree on, even though 80 percent can get done. The committee process will enable us to find that 80 percent, and that has been a principle that has guided my chairmanship.

I was honored and humbled when my colleagues selected me to chair the HELP Committee nearly 2 years ago. Since my chairmanship began, the vision for both the full committee and the subcommittees is to craft legislation that provides lifelong opportunities for people to be healthier, more competitive, and to be more secure at school, work, and in retirement.

Because we have such a broad jurisdiction, the HELP Committee has had an aggressive legislative schedule in the 109th Congress. Over the past 2 years, together with the subcommittees, we have held 57 hearings and reported 36 bills out of committee; 21 of these proposals were approved by the Senate and 12 were signed by the President and became public law. We also reviewed and approved 352 nominations that require Senate confirmation. I thank my colleagues, including their staffs, for doing the work needed to maintain this aggressive pace.

In this Congress, the HELP Committee has been privileged to have in its ranks active subcommittee chairmen and engaged members. This is largely the reason the committee has had legislative success. I thank them for their dedication, and I applaud them for the joint success as a committee. Our ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and I may disagree on a number of issues, but we have worked hard to find common ground and we share a commitment to improving the health, education, work, and retirement security of Americans.

The number of bills acted upon by the HELP Committee is certainly impressive. However, the numbers alone don't begin to tell the story of how the committee's activity will improve the lives of Americans now and in the years to come. One of the committee's most significant accomplishments came on August 17 of this year when President Bush signed into law the Pension Protection Act. That act marks the most comprehensive change to pension law since 1974. The Pension Protection Act is a real victory for working Americans who spend a lifetime working hard and saving for retirement. It dramatically strengthens pension funding rules and helps curb record pension failures. In doing so, the act better protects the retirement dreams of 45 million Americans. Not only were single employer fund rules significantly overhauled, but the rules regarding hybrid pension plans were finally clarified, and multi-employer funding rules were changed as well. The proposal strengthens current law and will better help Americans prepare and plan for retirement. It provides workers the security of knowing that moneys earned for retirement will be there when they are ready to retire.

It also secures the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and secures that corporation without picking the pockets of taxpayers to keep the agency solvent. This legislation was no small undertaking. It took a year and a half of hearings, 5 months of deliberations in conference, and countless hours of negotiations on each provision of the bill.

Fortunately, pension issues are almost always handled in tag team fashion, involving both the HELP Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. While this tag team approach is a great asset and helped us get the bill through the Senate, it meant a complicated and extraordinarily large conference involving four committees in the House and Senate and 27 conferees.

Together with my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, ranking member Senator Baucus, as well as HELP's Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee Chairman DeWine, and Ranking Member Mikulski, our committees collaborated with House counterparts to make this sweeping reform happen. Because of this teamwork, the law passed the Senate 93 to 5. The result was a policy and a process that was truly bipartisan. Total floor time for the bill--Senate debate and conference report debate--totaled about one hour and fifteen minutes equally divided.

Some may think the conference took a long time to conclude, but history proves that it was ended in record time. The last big pension conference occurred in 1994. The conference was appointed in March of that year, but did not conclude until December. Prior to that, the most recent conference took place in 1987 and operated in the context of budget reconciliation. Again, that conference commenced in March but didn't end until December.

This year, our conference began in March and ended in July--just 5 months compared to a 10-month conference for earlier bills. Comparatively speaking, the Pension Protection Act conference finished quickly, but the impact will be felt for generations.

Another major accomplishment of the HELP Committee was the enactment of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, MINER. From the tragic loss of life in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky came the first reforms of mine safety laws in 28 years. These tragedies brought together leaders from the mining industry, from government, and from the labor unions, and helped to forge a commitment to improve mine safety. I traveled to the Sago mine with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Isakson. We met with the families of the miners who lost their lives. We met with other miners who worked there, and we met with people in the union. I felt a commitment to those families and miners in this country to try to ensure that this would never happen again.

The committee approved the MINER Act on May 17, and the President signed the bill in June. That has to be one of the fastest, most comprehensive changes to any safety law. I can't emphasize enough the cooperation of unions and company executives, and Republicans and Democrats.

Protecting the health and safety of those who work in the mining industry need not be a partisan issue. Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to national energy security. Ensuring the safety of our miners is essential to protecting and preserving the industry and protecting the workers. I especially thank Senators Kennedy, Isakson, Byrd, Rockefeller, and McConnell for the tireless effort they extended. Their efforts contributed in large part to this proposal becoming law.

I should mention that the debate on the Senate floor was 1 hour equally divided with two votes. So nobody saw that. Nobody saw that debate, but it makes a significant difference for all the people in the country--the mining bill. You never saw any debate on the floor. It passed unanimously without debate. It passed in the House under suspension with limited debate--the same bill.

Sometimes the things that get done by unanimous consent that everybody agrees on nobody ever finds out about, except the people it does benefit; they know. That is why it is worth doing it that way. For a bill that has objections around here, there are ways to overcome it if you get 60 votes for it. But that is usually about a 3-week process. A unanimous consent doesn't use up much time, but it gets things done.

The committee has also made tremendous strides related to education and job training. This session the

HELP Committee initiated a comprehensive effort to authorize legislation that enhances knowledge and skills and helps American workers become leaders in the global economy. Some estimates suggest that 60 percent of the jobs created in the next decade will require skills that only 20 percent of the workers today currently possess, and 80 percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. Eighty percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. That is where the world is going. It is changing fast.

One important component of this effort is the reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. It was signed by the President in August, and it will help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. The act addresses the needs of the Nation's changing workforce and prepares Americans for highly technical, higher-paying jobs. The reauthorization also made changes that will increase accountability at the State and local levels and will establish stronger links with businesses to build partnerships with high schools and colleges so they can better meet the needs of the changing workforce.

For many people, participation in these programs can mean the difference between a job with no possibility of advancement and a successful career. Passage of this legislation was a significant accomplishment. Again, limited floor debate, no debate on the conference report; unanimous consent across the aisle.

Another piece of this comprehensive effort is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. As my colleagues know, the mandatory portions of the higher education law were reauthorized in February under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. Before I elaborate, I want to stress that it is critical to reauthorize the remaining discretionary programs under the act, which I intend to make a top priority for 2007. We have the bill out of committee but haven't had the floor time to do the debate on it. I am making that a top priority for 2007 because postsecondary education is the key to the future success of our students, our communities, and our economy.

As I stated earlier, we reauthorized the mandatory components of the Higher Education Act through the budget reconciliation process. We found over $20 billion in savings by eliminating corporate subsidies for lenders and reworking the interest rate structure for many borrowers, among other revisions. A portion of the savings was used to pay for over $9 billion in enhanced students benefits. The law makes higher education more affordable for students who finance part of their education through loans by reducing borrow origination fees and increasing loan limits.

Another benefit is a $4 billion grant program for postsecondary students who major in science, math, and certain national-security- related foreign languages. These funds are dubbed ``SMART grants'' and are an important part of making higher education more affordable for low- and middle-income families. We invested resources where we need them the most, which will help ensure we have a workforce that can compete globally.

I was in India earlier this year and saw firsthand what Thomas Friedman discusses in his book, ``The World Is Flat.'' It doesn't take long to figure out that by sheer numbers alone, India has only to educate 25 percent of its population to have more literate and educated people than the total population of the United States.

By using the reconciliation process for these higher education reforms, the HELP Committee was able to produce meaningful deficit reduction. In fact, I am proud the HELP Committee led the entire Congress in deficit reduction and produced $15.5 billion in savings over five years. That is 40 percent of the entire Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. It is not right to overspend now and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren to pay later.

I thank Chairman Gregg for his leadership on the Budget Committee and for his contribution on the authorizing committee that helped make the meaningful deficit reduction a reality.

Enactment of the Perkins reauthorization and the mandatory revisions of the Higher Education Act were critical components of a comprehensive effort to strengthen knowledge and skills. However, this effort also includes the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The reauthorization is essential because it will help train American workers to fill the good jobs being created so we can continue to be leaders in the global economy.

The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act has been a priority of mine since I chaired the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety in the previous Congress. Last Congress, I worked tirelessly to report the legislation from the committee, only to be held up on the Senate floor when it came time to appoint conferees. Now, that means the bill made it out of committee and cleared the Senate floor. The House passed a different version, so we need a conference committee to resolve the differences. However, we weren't allowed to appoint a conference committee. That was 2 years ago. Mr. President, 900,000 new jobs could be trained under that program. This year, once again, I have been procedurally hamstrung in my efforts to move to conference. The bill must be completed. It made it out of the committee unanimously. It made it through the floor of the Senate, again unanimously. That means everybody agreed with what is in the bill. Now the only problem left is we have to reconcile that with what the House passed.

America is facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete on the world stage. This bill sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and our employers remain competitive and about closing the skills gap that is putting America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.

Our commitment to lifelong learning never ends. It begins with giving our children the proper tools for a start down the pathway that leads to their education. The committee approved improvements to Head Start this last year, and the completion of this process is one of my top priorities.

On the health front, eight committee bills were signed into law by President Bush. One of the most significant new health care laws is the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The new law is a culmination of 6 years of work in response to the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report that found that nearly 100,000 Americans die needlessly every year due to medical errors.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act creates a protected legal environment in which patient safety organizations can analyze why medical errors happen and develop strategies to stop those errors from happening again. The law provides critical legal protection for doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who might fear coming forward with information about mistakes because the information could be used in a lawsuit against them.

This new law is the first important step toward creating a new culture of safety and continuous quality improvement in health care.

This new law is one of just several important pieces of legislation the HELP Committee produced in this Congress. I would mention again that this too took zero debate time on the floor. Another one is the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005, which will help patients with chronic diseases team up with health care experts who can help them find their way through the maze to the best treatment offered in this often complex health care system. Again, no floor debate time.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 supports the creation and maintenance of cord blood stem cells. Stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood have already shown great promise in treating cancers, leukemia, and other diseases, and this law will accelerate our work in those areas. I have already had people who have reported back to me that their life may have been saved by that particular act already. I think we had 5 minutes of debate time on that bill.

The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005 enables physicians and other prescribers to find out whether patients are abusing and diverting narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Instead of enabling these patients and their self-destructive habits, physicians will now be able to identify them and treat them.

The State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2005 renewed a key law that funds State high-risk health insurance pools. These pools create access to health insurance for otherwise medically uninsurable individuals and are an important part of our strategy to make health insurance available to more Americans. The President also signed a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and strengthen the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Finally, we passed two key laws to preserve access to medical technology. The Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 prevented the FDA's medical device user fee program from expiring. Without this law, patients' access to the latest medical innovations would have been compromised. Congress also acted to protect children from dangerous, unregulated cosmetic lenses, often used as part of costumes, by providing for the regulation of these lenses as medical devices.

The HELP Committee members worked together with our House counterparts in a bipartisan, bicameral way to complete action on these laws. I personally thank all of the committee members on both ends of the building for their active participation in this process.

We also scored a victory on the Senate floor this summer related to health insurance. Together with Senators Nelson and Burns, I introduced legislation that would allow business and trade associations to band their members together in small business health plans and offer group health coverage on a national or statewide basis. It would give small businesses the capability to group together across State lines to effectively negotiate against big insurance companies. It would bring down insurance rate significantly, particularly in the area of administrative costs.

This legislation, the Health Insurance Marketplace and Modernization and Affordability Act, is a direct response to the runaway costs that are driving Americans and businesses away from the health insurance marketplace. In May, this legislation received 55 votes on the Senate floor--a clear majority. Unfortunately, obstructionists used arcane Senate rules requiring 60 votes for passage to defeat consideration of the bill. I count this as a victory for the HELP Committee because the policy is supported by the majority of the Senate. This will not be a victory for Americans until it is signed by the President.

Enacting the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act will be a top priority for the HELP Committee and me personally in the 110th Congress. I intend to act on this legislation early next year and continue to work across party lines to find the solution that produces 60 votes in the Senate. The HELP Committee has a role to play in making employer-sponsored health care more accessible and affordable. Employer-provided health insurance is voluntary, and it is in critical condition. Sixty percent of the country's employers offer insurance today. That is down 9 percent from just 5 years ago. And the cost of health insurance for companies has nearly doubled in that same period, with employers expected to pay an average of $8,167 per employee family versus $4,248 5 years ago. My proposal would provide health care coverage to over 1 million small businesses and their working families.

This fall, I am also hopeful the committee can add two more victories to our list of accomplishments. That would be the Health Information Technology conference agreement and the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.

Right now, my staff is working aggressively with the House to complete action on the Wired For Health Care Quality Act conference agreement. This legislation will enhance the adoption of a nationwide interoperable health information technology system, improve the quality of health care, and contain costs. Primarily, it will allow each individual to own their own health care record and to carry it around with them easily. They will have the permanent record to carry with them and release, to the degree they want to, to any health care provider. This will contain costs: just between Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans, this is expected to save $160 billion a year. The cost to implement: $40 billion, one time. A good investment anywhere.

The committee has also been working in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to complete the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. The measure was approved by the HELP Committee in May, and I am hopeful that we can swiftly clear compromise legislation through both Chambers by December--I was hoping we could pass it today, but I see it has been stopped. It is absolutely essential that this clear by September 30.

The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act will also have a significant impact on the everyday lives of Americans. The HELP Committee approved this legislation in June, and I am hopeful we can complete action on it this year as well. This reauthorization is important because it ensures that our Nation's older Americans, including 78 million aging baby boomers, are healthy, fed, housed, able to get where they need to go, and safe from abuse and scams. We have been in bicameral, bipartisan deliberations for several months. Again, there is a little hangup on the funding formula. Money has to follow the people in all of these programs.

The committee also conducted various investigations and held several oversight hearings that exposed waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs and used the findings to craft legislation to increase accountability. Our first oversight hearing last year focused on how an asset management company, Capital Consultants, defrauded workers out of approximately $500 million in retirement assets. The findings from this oversight effort were addressed in the new pension law.

The committee also held the first oversight hearing in almost 70 years on the Randolph Sheppard Act and the Javits Wagner O'Day Act. Both programs are supposed to find employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The committee's investigation and hearing established that some executives were using the programs for their own enrichment--making millions while exploiting people with disabilities. Following the hearing, Federal law enforcement took action against the worst actors, and we have collaborated across party lines to systematically overhaul both programs. My goal is to address these programs with legislation next year.

I thank my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their hard work these past 2 years. His assistance and cooperation are the main reasons we have been able to accomplish many of these priorities. We didn't always agree, but we were able to identify common ground to advance our mutual priorities.

I also thank each of our committee members. As I stated earlier, we have kept a full schedule. Many of the legislative victories were initiatives brought to my attention by our subcommittee chairs or individual committee members. Senators were also especially diligent about attending the committee hearings and particularly patient when we sometimes waited for a quorum during executive session. For the remainder of the year, I will be reaching out to each of our members to seek feedback on the 2007 agenda, which will serve as the blueprint for the year.

Finally, in closing, I would like to recognize two departing members of the committee: Majority Leader Frist and Senator Jeffords. We are fortunate they chose to serve, and we are grateful for their contributions. Senator Jeffords is a past chairman of the committee, and, of course, Majority Leade Frist has been the doctor on the committee and provided a perspective no one else could. I am proud of the work we have done here on the committee these past 2 years. By working together, we have established a track record of success.

I also wish to compliment the subcommittee chairmen for their extremely hard work. We gave them a lot of independence, and they didn't disappoint me. They took hold of programs. The competitiveness program is one of them that has reached a point where it can now be debated and pursued. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did a tremendous job of working that bill, along with Senator Ensign, collaborating with three different committees on one piece of farsighted legislation.

Senators DeWine and Mikulski have done a marvelous job with the Elder Fall Act and Older Americans Act and have worked well together for a number of years across the aisle to make sure older Americans are taken care of.

I could go on and mention all of the subcommittees and the work they have done. Senator Burr has done some fantastic work on bioterrorism. He has put together a fantastic bill that contains new concepts which will allow better preparation for any of the possible terrorism acts that could happen on our own soil. Senator Isakson, of course, has been extremely active in handling labor issues. As I mentioned, he was a key player in the miner safety bill.

It has been an interesting year. I look forward to another interesting year. I am looking for suggestions from my colleagues on what needs to be done, and looking for that 80 percent that can be accomplished.

Our record of accomplishment is proof that we are a can-do Congress. Far from being a do-nothing Congress, we have shown our colleagues and our constituents that Congress can and is working hard to improve the lives of Americans.

One of the reasons America doesn't know more about this is because of the cooperation that has taken place. We didn't have to debate the 20 percent we didn't agree on here on the floor of the Senate, and consequently there was not a lot of coverage. But just the pensions bill and the miner safety bill, either of those, would be a major accomplishment for any committee during a 2-year period.

I am proud of the 12 bills the President signed and the 21 bills we got through this body. I think that is a record of accomplishment, and I thank all those who participated.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we have several pages of amendments that are out there. We repeat our invitation on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords. We want to invite all Democrats and Republicans who have amendments to the highway bill to bring them down. It is going to get crowded later as we go on. Now we have time for adequate consideration, for deliberation, and we encourage Members to bring their amendments to the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first I say to the Senator from Colorado, we miss him on the committee. He was an excellent member of the committee. However, he was replaced by some excellent freshmen who are as enthusiastic as was the Senator from Colorado. While we miss him on the committee, it is still a great committee, and we certainly appreciate very much the comments he made this morning and the contributions he has made to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the regular order is the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana. He has agreed to set his amendment aside for the consideration of other amendments as they come to the floor, with the understanding he will regain the floor after those amendments are considered and action taken, if action is taken.

We do have an amendment from the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Bond, who has worked tirelessly for years on this bill. I am sure he wants to offer it at this time.

I thank the Senator from Virginia. I serve on the Armed Services Committee under his capable leadership. He chairs that committee. He is also the longest serving member of the committee that I chair, Environment and Public Works. It is very rare that I would oppose something he is in favor of. This might be that exception. But let me give him our assurance that nothing is going to happen to dispose of this amendment until he has adequate time to complete his hearing and come down and be heard on this amendment.

Mr. President, we have talked about this issue several times before. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has very strong beliefs. Those beliefs are shared by the ranking minority member and by several members of our committee. This amendment was added in committee. It is one I voted against at the time. I did oppose it. However, I know there are very strong feelings about it and I want to make sure everybody gets to be heard, and I am sure we will end up with a rollcall vote. I would only make a couple of comments.

There are flexible provisions in the underlying bill that will help States address their storm water needs and maintain their ability to determine how to spend these limited dollars. For that reason I had felt a mandatory 2-percent set-aside in this bill was not necessary.

Currently, States are allowed to use their STP funds for environmental enhancements which include a variety of projects, including storm water mitigation. Our bill gives States the option to use STP and NHS money for storm water mitigation. Our bill allows those States that wish to use highway money to address storm water runoff and help communities comply with phase 1 and 2 on clean water runoff to do so.

I think probably one of the reasons for my opposition to this is I spent 4 terms as mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK. I have always been a strong believer that the closer you get to home, the better the decisions are. In other words, the idea that somehow Washington knows more about my State of Oklahoma than the people in my State of Oklahoma is something I have disagreed with.

If this amendment should be agreed to and the bill should become law, if we in the State of Oklahoma want to spend 2 percent or even more of our money for this purpose, we can do it. But if we have other priorities that are greater, as determined by those of us in Oklahoma, then I think that should take precedence.

For that reason I will respectfully support this amendment. I am sure there will be more discussion on it later on.

I am sure the ranking minority member will agree with me, we do not want to do anything further other than hear debate until Senator Warner, whose provision it was that was put in the bill in committee, has ample time to debate it and to come to the floor and try to work out any compromises he may be successful in working out with the author of the amendment, Senator Bond.

With that, let me renew our appeal to Members to come down with their amendments. I am glad we are finally getting some activity here, some amendments coming down. It is very important we move on with this bill. We have several pages of amendments. I know a lot of these amendments are going to be agreed to in a managers' amendment we will be propounding before too long. There are some that will have to be fought out on the floor. It is my desire, and I am sure the desire of the ranking minority member, that we get on with these amendments. I have been here long enough to know what is going to happen. We are going to have all day today to handle amendments, and tomorrow. People are not going to bring them down. Then when something happens or when cloture is filed, everyone is going to get hysterical and say, Why didn't I have time to offer my amendment?

You may not have time. We are serving warning to you right now, that could happen. Now there is time and we encourage you to come down. This amendment under discussion now, which the Senator from Indiana has graciously set aside--it is his amendment--is one that will be controversial and I suspect there will be many members on the minority side of our committee who want to be heard. I think they were unanimous in supporting Senator Warner in the committee at that time.

We hope those people will come down and get the debate out of the way so we can proceed with this amendment and with any other amendments that come to the floor. Let's keep in mind, as I said yesterday on more than one occasion, what will happen if we are not successful in getting this bill passed. We are on our sixth extension. The extensions do not work. Our money is not well spent. People are dying on the highways. There are things that are happening that will not happen unless we pass this bill. Without an extension there is not going to be any chance to improve the donor status. My State is a donor State. I remember when it was 75 percent as a guarantee to come back to the States for money paid into the highway trust fund, revenues that were collected in my State of Oklahoma. Now it is up to 90.5 percent. If we had been successful with the bill last year, it would have been 95 percent.

Senator Jeffords and I did everything we could to get our bill passed. We are going to try to make that happen this time. But for those States that are concerned about their donor status, they better be lining up and supporting this. We do not know in conference what is going to come out in terms of a number, but we do know this: Donor status of 90.5 percent will at least go up to 91 or 92 percent. So they are going to be better off, but not if we operate on an extension. If we operate on an extension, we are not going to have any new safety core programs.

They call this SAFETEA. I know there is an effort by the chairman of the committee in the other body to rename it TEALU. I do not have a real problem with that. But it is a safety bill. We have many safety provisions, core programs that respond to the thousands of deaths each year on our roadways. If we go on extensions, we are not going to make any of these safety provisions a reality.

If we go on extensions instead of a bill, there is not going to be any new streamlining. In fact, some of the current obstacles in helping us to get roads built and bridges improved can be corrected, but they can only be corrected if we are able to pass this bill. If we operate on extensions, there is no increased ability to use innovative financing, thereby giving the States more tools.

This is something that is so important. Ever since the Eisenhower administration, we haven't changed the way we fund our road program. There are a lot of ideas out there where we could use the public- private partnership to build more roads and bridges. In fact, we have in this bill a provision that establishes a commission to study various ways, innovative ways to change the way we finance our roads, highways, bridges, and infrastructure in America. But if we are on an extension, if we do not pass this bill, we are not going to be able to do that.

We have one provision in here, Safe Routes to School, which is one I felt strongly about, but I was not the leader on it. There are several on our committee as well as over on the House side. As I recall, this is one of the programs Congressman Oberstar felt very strongly about. If we operate on an extension, we are not going to have the Safe Routes to School Program. We could have deaths of young people as a result of our failure to act. That is why this is so important.

Certainty in planning: On an extension, there is no certainty. You think we are going to get the same amount of money that was already authorized previously, but nothing else has changed. We don't know what is going to happen next year. We don't know whether we are going to have a bill that will be passed a month from now or 2 months from now or a year from now. Therefore, there is no long-range planning that can take place.

I served in the State legislature in Oklahoma many years ago. I know when you start planning for the future

you have to plan for your contract season. It is not as severe in Oklahoma as it is in Vermont or some of the Northern States, but certainly these things have to be considered. We have to have our labor supply ready to absorb, to be able to accommodate a heavy schedule of construction, so we need to be able to plan for that.

In this bill we have a border program, Borders and Corridors. It is very important we do these to accommodate the States such as Texas, California, Arizona, and other border States along the northern border, to help them out with that program. Without this bill we are not going to be able to do that.

There are chokepoints. A lot of people think of the highway bill as just highways. This is intermodal transportation. It affects railroad crossings. Our State of Oklahoma is a State that has a channel. It comes all the way to my town of Tulsa, OK. A lot of people don't know that. We know there are chokepoints where barge traffic will come up; it will go to rail traffic; it will go to truck traffic. This bill addresses intermodal transportation and eliminates chokepoints.

Finally, we have the firewalls. What has bothered me more over the years than anything else I can think of is how people will raid trust funds. Politicians in State legislatures--it has happened here in Washington--when no one is looking and there is a large surplus in some trust fund, what do they do with a large surplus, I ask Senator Jeffords? They run in there and they raid it. Consequently there are no real protections under an extension. But we do have protections in the bill that is before you.

I have every confidence--I don't want to sound as though I am doubting whether we are going to have a bill. But we need to pass it in time to get it to conference, back from conference, get it voted on, and in law by May 31. That is getting very close.

In the Senate we will be going into a recess next week. We will not be here for 7 days. It is my expectation as soon as we get back, we will be in a position to finish this bill, get it to conference, and meet this deadline.

I know I speak on behalf of our minority member, the ranking member, the Democratic member on the committee, Senator Jeffords, in urging people to come down and offer their amendments.

The Senator and I know they are up there right now. Come on down.

Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. It is interesting when he reads off the list of people anxious for a bill.

In the case of Oklahoma, when I was mayor of the city of Tulsa, we were interested in being able to plan ahead. We have our Council of Governments saying they need to have it. We have our State department of transportation that says they are going to miss their construction season. We have to get it done.

While Senator Jeffords and I many times philosophically disagree, the fact we agree so much on getting this bill completed speaks well of what we are trying to do. It demonstrates the broad base of support. I don't have any doubt we will be able to get passage. The problem is if we do not get the amendments for consideration, it will be a logjam when we return from recess and could very well be a problem in meeting our deadline of May 31. That is what we need to focus on.

We are in agreement on most of the provisions. There is some disagreement on the formula. Formulas are always a problem. I have been very happy about the way the Senate has done this. After having spent 8 years in the other body and serving on the Transportation Committee of the House of Representatives, I remember meetings we had. I don't say this in a critical way, but they operate on the basis of projects. We do, too, except the difference is we talk about formulas and try to be as equitable as possible and let the States determine their projects.

It gets back to the argument, who is in a better position to know the needs of my constituents in the State of Oklahoma? Is it Washington or our transportation commissioners responsible to the State legislature and the needs in the State?

Some people say in an expensive bill, there is pork. There is no pork in the bill. There are only two projects in the entire bill. People need to understand that.

This will change to some degree when we get to conference because it has to be agreed to by a majority of the conferees on the House, as well as a majority of the conferees from the Senate. To devise a formula that no one will disagree with is absolutely impossible. The only choice we have if we look for unanimity in approving a formula would be to have Senator Jeffords and me go to 60 Senators and say we will take care of you and we will forget about the other 40. We would have a bill and do it and it would be perfectly legitimate and not unethical.

We take into consideration the Interstate Maintenance Program. It varies from State to State. We take into consideration the National Highway System, the lane miles, the principal arteries, excluding the interstate VMT on principal arteries, excluding the interstate diesel fuel used on highways, and total lane miles on principal arteries divided by population. All these things have gone into the formula.

The Surface Transportation Program, which we have talked about, is part of the consideration in terms of total lane miles.

The Highway Bridge Replacement Rehabilitation Program I am particularly sensitive to because Oklahoma ranks last in terms of the condition of bridges. These things have to be considered.

The Recreation Trails Program varies from State to State. There has to be something in a formula that will take into consideration these programs.

Border planning and operations: Since the passage of NAFTA and now they are considering CAFTA, there are unusual situations taking place from State to State. We have low-income States. My State, Oklahoma, is a low-income State. We have low-population States such as Wyoming, Montana, and

some of the States where they still have to have roads, but they do not have the number of people so that has to be part of the consideration and part of a formula.

They have low-population density States, high-fatality States. Some States have higher fatalities than other States. That has to be taken into consideration.

All these things--donor status, donee status--all are important. But the bottom line is, I can take all 12 or 14 factors and put them into a formula program. I can find areas where Oklahoma is not considered as well as Texas or as Vermont. I can find factors that treat Vermont worse than they treat Montana or some of the other States. If someone is looking to be ahead on all factors, there is not 1 of 50 States that can say they are.

I ask our Members to consider that. Formulas consider a lot of things. We have done a good job with the approach we have. It is a harder approach to take than the approach the other body uses. It is easier for them to get a bill on and off the floor. Timing is important. There is not a Member of this Senate who does not agree we need to get a bill passed.

Members may not like the bill as it is. Come on down with amendments. We are waiting for you. We invite Members.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, while we are again encouraging people to bring amendments down to the floor, I would like to make some comments on a statement that was made yesterday that affects our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Yesterday evening, the junior Senator from Delaware discussed his hold on Stephen Johnson's nomination to be Administrator of the EPA. His main complaint about Steve Johnson is about a lack of technical data from EPA on Clear Skies. We are talking about the Clear Skies legislation we considered in our committee that the administration has come forth with.

But there has been no lack of technical data. The EPA has provided the Environment and Public Works Committee with over 10,000 pages of modeling on costs, job impacts, fuel switching, air quality, and deaths avoided for the various multi-emissions proposals.

This information provides extensive detail about the impacts on the Nation as a whole, regions, and individual States. Claims that EPA did not supply sufficient information to make an informed decision simply do not have any credibility.

In fact, this is in direct contrast to 2002, when then-Chairman Jeffords--I have been making all kinds of complimentary remarks about the ranking member, Senator Jeffords. Back in 2002, Senator Jeffords was the chairman and I was the ranking member. He came forth with something he had very strong feelings about, and that was the Clean Power Act. When he marked it up, we had less than 1 week to review a 53-page bill, without any modeling information whatsoever. Let me repeat that: less than 1 week to mark up a 53-page bill, which was substituted for the original 5-page bill. I do not say that critically because we did it. Nonetheless, we did it without the information I believed was necessary at that time. We did not have information.

In addition, the quality of information in 1990--this is back when we considered the Clean Air Act Amendments--paled in comparison to what the executive branch has been able to produce for us using today's more sophisticated models run on powerful supercomputers. The committee had far more information about the impacts of the Clear Skies legislation than the entire Senate had in 1990 during the debate on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

Now, what has been particularly frustrating is that the EPA data request was used as a red herring to vote against Clear Skies. It is now being used as an excuse to oppose Steve Johnson. I do want to talk about Steve Johnson a minute because it is very unusual we have the opportunity to have a Director with the background of Mr. Johnson.

When we notified the minority last November 15 of our intentions of marking up the Clear Skies bill in February,

they never once raised the issue of needing more data from the EPA until after we delayed the first markup on February 16. Then they mentioned the need to get more data from the EPA almost as an afterthought.

When we offered to delay the markup 2 weeks, in order to negotiate a compromise, we were told they needed data from EPA, which would take 6 months to produce. This, of course, was after our committee already spent 5 years conducting 24 hearings on the topic. We were told, after all this committee work and the 10,000 pages of analysis, that the minority still needed more analysis before they would be willing to even begin negotiating.

Nevertheless, EPA has offered to spend considerable resources to analyze each of the multi-emission proposals using an identical methodology to guarantee that comparisons of the three bills are apples to apples. Yet the charge is being leveled that this offer still is not enough.

Last week, the EPA offered to conduct even more analysis to satisfy Senator Carper, offering detailed data on S. 131, the President's Clear Skies proposal; secondly, the Clear Skies manager's amendment from March 9, 2005--that was ours; S. 843, Senator Carper's Clean Air Planning Act; and, fourth, S. 150, Senator Jeffords' Clean Power Act.

The data would consist of the cost of each bill; the fuel mix for electricity production; Henry-Hub natural gas prices; average mine mouth coal prices; regional electricity prices; emission allowance prices; national and regional coal production; the response of electric generating facilities--for example, the capacity retrofitted with pollution control equipment; national and State-by-State emission levels for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury; the national aggregate CO2 emissions; public health and environmental provisions benefits of each bill, such as the total monetized health benefits, premature mortality benefits, and visibility benefits; and the effects of each bill on nonattainment areas--for example, for each current nonattainment area, EPA will list the counties in the area and project whether the area comes into attainment with ozone and particulate matter.

This is for all four pieces of legislation, not just one, everything that has been asked for. This was an unprecedented offer of information by the administration to the junior Senator from Delaware and, frankly, it is more information than I believe he needs in order to move forward on Clear Skies. This is in addition to the 10,000 pages of data the committee has already received. This information would take the staff of EPA 6 to 8 weeks to complete.

Unfortunately, even this offer is not enough. The junior Senator from Delaware is insisting on the same level of analysis that the administration conducted for the President's proposal, which would take a half a year. Strangely, he insists this would allow him to negotiate multiemissions legislation this spring.

This is a level of detail that no administration has ever conducted for a legislative proposal at this stage in the process and, quite frankly, a level of detail that is inappropriate to request. If the EPA were requested to conduct this type of analysis for every bill, we would have to double the size of the EPA, and all of their employees would be working full time on congressional requests. To suggest that a congressional committee needs this type of analysis before it can move on legislation is ridiculous.

In the history of the Clean Air Act, we have more and better quality data today than we have ever had in moving legislation, including the amendments of 1990. Those are the amendments that were so significant and have had such a positive effect on air quality. We have more data than we ever had in moving any environmental legislation.

This demand for data was an excuse for delaying the Clear Skies legislation and, quite frankly, it was an excuse to delay or obstruct Steve Johnson's nomination. This appears to be part of a larger strategy to obstruct this President's EPA nominees. Last Congress, Governor Leavitt's nomination hearing was first boycotted by the minority, then delayed for over 50 days. Today, Steve Johnson is also being obstructed.

For just a moment, I wish to say something about the nomination of Steve Johnson to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is unfortunate we find ourselves in a position of having that nomination filibustered by the Democratic side. Mr. Johnson is not a partisan politician. In fact, he is neither a partisan nor a politician. I can't tell you right now whether he is a Democrat or Republican. I don't think it makes any difference.

Steve Johnson is a career EPA employee who has risen through the ranks under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He joined the EPA during the Carter administration and was promoted to senior management posts during the Clinton administration. He has also been confirmed twice by the Senate, both times without opposition. Stephen Johnson is not a partisan. He is also a scientist and, if confirmed, would be both the first scientist and first career EPA employee to serve as the head of the agency. We never had someone who has a scientific background as Administrator of the EPA, nor have we had anyone who has gone through the ranks of the EPA. There has never before been a nominee who has known this agency so well prior to becoming Administrator.

One of the big problems we have had with Administrators who are not familiar with the agency is when we have something that needs to be done, it takes them forever to sort through to find out where the bad guys and good guys are and where the reports are coming from. He already knows. He spent 24 years doing this.

He is trained in biology and pathology. After graduating from college, he worked for the Computer Sciences Corporation at the Goddard Space Flight Center and was signed to serve as a junior member of the launch support team for the first Synchronous Meteorological Satellite, SMS-1. He joined EPA during the Carter administration as a health scientist in the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. He left EPA briefly in 1982 to join a private lab and then returned in 1984 to EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Throughout the years Mr. Johnson climbed through the ranks, eventually being appointed to senior management positions by the Clinton administration, including Deputy Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator at that time.

I have to say I was there when this happened during the Clinton administration. I asked him a lot of serious questions, and I did not object to his nomination even though it was propounded by the Clinton administration.

In 2001, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as the Assistant Administrator for that program office. He was confirmed without opposition. Just last year when Mike Leavitt became Administrator he was nominated to the No. 2 spot at the agency. Once again, he was confirmed without any opposition.

Steve Johnson's qualifications are beyond question. The question is, why are we here fighting for cloture on not just a qualified nominee but a nominee who has been consistently promoted by both Democratic and Republican Presidents? I believe Jonathan Adler did a good job describing this nomination process when he wrote the following in the National Review:

President Bush's selection of Steven L. Johnson as

administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was

universally praised in Washington, D.C. Democrats and

Republicans, environmental activists and industry lobbyists

all hailed the pick as a positive step for the troubled

agency. Stalwart conservative Sen. James Inhofe . . .

--that's me--

applauded the choice while the Environmental Working Group's

Ken Cook called it a ``spectacularly good appointment.'' The

era of good feelings did not last long, however. Once slated

for a quick and easy confirmation, Johnson is now the victim

of an old-fashioned political obstruction as Senate Democrats

again target the administration's environmental policies.

This isn't the first time in recent history that an EPA Administrator has been held up. In fact, that precedent was set the last time someone was nominated by this President. Governor Mike Leavitt was treated with equal courtesy as Steve Johnson. I know some, including the junior Senator from Delaware, are now saying: I supported Mike Leavitt and was there for him. But that is simply not accurate.

In fact, when the committee was scheduled to vote on the Leavitt nomination, the vote was boycotted by the Democrats. Not a single committee Democrat showed up, including the Senator from Delaware. It was part of the boycott.

The three Administrators previous to Mike Leavitt took an average of 8 days to confirm. Mike Leavitt's confirmation took 50 days, 50 days to confirm a Cabinet-level position for an individual who clearly is qualified.

So this is nothing new for a qualified EPA Administrator nominated by President Bush. It has been nearly a month that Steve Johnson has awaited confirmation. The time has come to confirm Mr. Johnson.

During the debate we will likely hear some negative comments about the President's record on the environment. What you hear from the Democrats will likely be a very distorted view. The facts are very plain, very easy to understand. By virtually every measure, under this President's stewardship, our air, our water, and our land are cleaner. We have a cleaner and healthier environment than we did prior to George W. Bush taking over as President. That is simply the simple truth.

Just to highlight a few of the actions by the President, he signed into law historic bipartisan legislation that has accelerated the cleanup of brownfields--all of the States are concerned about that-- better protecting public health, creating jobs, and revitalizing communities. George W. Bush is the first President ever to require the reduction of mercury emissions by powerplants. I can remember when there were full-page ads during the campaign saying that this President is lowering the emissions. There were no restrictions before he came in. He is the one who made the first reduction in our history. This President has imposed a mandatory 70-percent reduction in mercury emissions from these sources.

Just a year ago, the President announced an aggressive new national goal, moving beyond the policy of no net loss wetlands to a new policy of an actual net increase for wetlands each year. His Great Lakes Legacy Program will help to clean up one of the largest systems of freshwater on Earth, roughly 18 percent of the world's supply. His Clear Skies initiative would have reduced SOX, NOX and mercury emissions by 70 percent--the largest mandated reduction of any President in the history of America. It wasn't Bill Clinton. It was George W. Bush.

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the environment and our families are healthier because of George W. Bush. The facts don't lie.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, let me say to my good friend from Oregon that the leader is coming down to make a statement. Would he withhold his request until the leader gets here and makes his statement?

I object.

I thank the chair.

Mental Health Parity Act

Mr. President, in just a few weeks while we are in recess, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the untimely death of our former colleague from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone died at the age of 58 in an airplane crash about 4 years ago. Paul and his wife Sheila and daughter Marcia were on their way to a campaign event in Eveleth, MN on October 25, 2002 when their plane crashed in a wooded field 2 miles short of the airport. We mourn for the surviving children Mark and David and for the families of the campaign staffers, Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy, and for the families of the pilots flying that fated aircraft.

Paul's tragic and premature death silenced one of the leading voices in America on the issue of mental illness. Paul Wellstone understood the devastation that mental illness can bring: the stigma, the alienation, the broken families and, sadly, even broken lives.

In 1992, together with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Paul introduced legislation to require insurance companies to offer the same coverage for treating mental illness as for physical illness. The Mental Health Parity Act was passed and signed into law in 1996. The final version of the bill sadly was watered down and fell short of Paul's earliest goals.

A new bill to eliminate these disparities in insurance coverage was introduced in the last Congress. The Paul Wellstone Treatment Act attracted widespread bipartisan support: 69 Members of this Chamber and 245 Members of the House--a clear majority supporting Paul Wellstone's legacy. But unfortunately, during the past 2 years, this bill was not called for passage and did not pass.

Today I am honored to be joined by Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota in submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, first to remember Paul Wellstone and honor his legacy, but also to publicly commit to finishing his work on mental health equity legislation.

Mental health disorders are the leading cause of disability. Without treatment, the consequences of mental illness for the individual and for all of us are staggering: disability, unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, inappropriate incarceration, suicide, and wasted lives. The economic costs of untreated mental illness is more than $100 billion each year in the United States. In my home State of Illinois, close to 4 million people, or 30 percent of the population, are affected by some form of mental illness each year, including depression. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people 15 to 24. Seventy-seven percent of adults with severe mental illness are unemployed.

Now, the good news is this: Mental illness is treatable but only for the people who have access to sound diagnosis and care. We have a good start, thanks to the Mental Health Parity law that Senators Wellstone and Domenici led to enactment in 1996. Our next challenge is to build on the work Paul Wellstone left behind.

Current law requires insurers offer mental health care and offer comparable benefit caps for mental health and physical health, but it does not require group health plans and their health insurance issuers to include mental health coverage in their benefits package. It doesn't prevent insurers from setting higher deductibles, higher copays, and fewer services covered for mental health illness. I commend Senators Kennedy and Domenici for their work in this Congress on working toward a consensus for reaching mental health parity for Americans.

I called Senator Domenici last week to tell him I was submitting this resolution and to cheer him on so that during the next session of Congress we can give the right tribute to Paul Wellstone and, more importantly, as Paul would see it and I see it as well, hope to millions of Americans.

This resolution honors Paul Wellstone. It commits us to continuing his work to ensure equity for people with mental illness. Paul fought against discrimination in any form. His life work was dedicated to creating a world in which everyone, regardless of race, religion, economic status, or health or mental health status, would be treated fairly and equally. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and renew our commitment to ensuring mental health parity.

Paul Wellstone was often quoted as saying:

I don't think politics has anything to do with left, right,

or center. It has to do with trying to do right by the

people.

That was what Paul Wellstone said. And now we will have our chance in the next session of Congress to honor that commitment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I at the outset thank my colleague from Minnesota who was quick to join with his colleague Senator Dayton as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Many times politics divides us, but when it comes to an issue such as mental illness, we are all in this together. I know my colleague from Minnesota has probably had the same experience I had, of raising this issue at a town meeting or a public meeting, and then I almost guarantee you that before you leave that hall, someone will come up to you and ask if they can speak to you privately to tell you the story of a child or a spouse who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or who has committed suicide. It touches so many of us. What Paul Wellstone was trying to remind us of is that mental illness is not a curse, it is an illness, and an illness that can be treated. Why shouldn't we include it in our health insurance for Americans so that every family can be spared the suffering that comes with mental illness today.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota for joining me on this resolution.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I would like to say by way of question through the Chair that I thank my colleague from Minnesota. I can recall when he first came to the Senate serving with our mutual friend, Paul Wellstone. It must have been tough to be that close to a dynamo. The man had boundless energy and committed to so many good causes.

The Senator from Minnesota has carried on the fine tradition for your State. I thank the Senator for joining us in this resolution.

Hope springs eternal, and maybe during the lame duck session Senator Kennedy and Senator Domenici will be able to give us some good news that will make us proud on this important issue.

I thank the Senator for his words today.

Mr. President, this morning one of my Republican colleagues came to the floor to talk about what appears to be the favorite topic of most Republican Senators: the estate tax. No matter what we are talking about on the floor, whether it is immigration reform, making America safe from terrorism, dealing with issues involving the funding for our troops, port security, without fail, you can count on one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to wedge in to this queue with what many of them consider to be at least equally important: the issue of the estate tax.

So my colleague came to the floor and mentioned my name over and over again as if I were his opponent. I would say to my colleague there are many Senators who disagree with his position, but I will be happy to address it for a moment or two.

The simple fact is this: If an American and a spouse have assets valued at less than $2 million at the time of their death, they will never pay one penny in estate taxes--not one. So if you ask who benefits from this repeal of the estate tax, well, sadly it turns out to be some of the wealthiest people in America. If you took 1 percent-- that is 1 out of 100--estates in America, people who die each year, only one-fourth of those will ever pay any estate tax. It is a very small number of people who have done very well in their lives in America who may end up paying estate tax.

I want my position to be clear. There is an exemption under the estate tax, an exempt amount that you can leave to your heirs, that will not be taxed. I think we need to increase that and regularly increase it to reflect reality. It is true, the real estate we own has gone up in value while we have lived there, businesses have increased in value, farms have increased in value, and I think the exemption should be increased as well.

Where I have a problem is where we have people who are very well off--multimillionaires--who end up owing the Government--in fact, owing their country--something for their success, and they will be left in a position with the proposal from the other side of the aisle where they may have no estate tax liability whatsoever.

The majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, has said he is for total repeal of the estate tax--total repeal so that Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft, who has done so well and made so much money, would pay nothing back to America by way of estate tax when he passes away. Well, Mr. Gates is not asking for that. Many people who are well off are not asking for that. They understand this country has been very good to them, and they are also prepared to pay back so that future generations have a chance to succeed as well.

My colleague came to the floor and talked about farmers and is concerned about farmers. I am from downstate Illinois. A few years ago, after hearing all of the debate about estate taxes, I wrote to the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Farmers Union, and asked them: Tell me of any farm that you know of where the farmer's survivors had to sell the farm because of paying Federal estate tax. There was not one single instance in my State. They couldn't find one. Now, I understand some of those farmers may have to sell off a portion of their land or some of their acreage to pay their taxes at the time that the spouse finally passes away. But as far as losing farms, that is something that is said over and over again, but neither the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union and, in fact, the American Farm Bureau could find a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 123 family-owned farms and 135 family-owned businesses would pay any estate tax at all with a $2 million family exemption level.

So we often have to stop and wonder why are we dwelling on this or why are some Members of the Senate continuing to dwell on this. If their sympathy is for those who are struggling to survive in America, they should focus their spotlight not on the wealthiest among us but those who are struggling at lower levels.

Let's take a look at some of the realities, the economic realities in America today. This chart shows what has happened over the last 6 years. The minimum wage has been frozen under President Bush and this Republican Congress for 9 years. During that 9-year period of time, the President's pay has been increased substantially, pay for Members of Congress increased $31,600, and the $5.15 an hour minimum wage has not gone up.

It is always interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to think that it is fine for those making the lowest wages in America, some of them working very hard each day, to have no increase in their pay for 9 straight years, while they are struggling to make ends meet. They come to the floor and talk to us about those who have made millions of dollars in their lives and whether they will have to pay any taxes. I think it is a misplaced priority.

If we take a look at some of the real household income of Americans across the board, you can see what has happened from 2000 to 2005. Real household income has declined by $1,273. It means the average family, working hard, paying off the costs of living--utilities and mortgages, energy costs, education costs--is working harder and falling behind each and every year.

Our economic policies in this country really are not focused where they should be. We should be focusing on this middle-income American family that is struggling to make ends meet in a very difficult time.

The distribution of wealth in America has changed substantially over the last several years. The distribution of earnings has become even more unequal. When you look at this situation, you see the years between 1995 and 2000 with a violet color, 2000 to 2005 with the red. So in the year 1995 to 2000, the last term of President Clinton, you can see there was an increase in earnings, weekly earnings for full- time workers, across the board. All of these violet bars above show, for example, a 9.6-percent increase, a 7.4-percent increase. So in that 4-year period of time, we had the distribution of earnings increasing.

Now look at the period of time under President Bush. During that time period, in each of these categories of income in America, we have seen that earnings have been declining or rising very slowly, as they are at the highest levels of income in America

Take a look at the wealth as well under the tax breaks given under this administration the last several years. This is the Bush economic record: a $38,000 tax break for people who are making $1 million a year, but for middle-income families making $50,000 to $100,000, their tax break under the Bush administration has been $55, and for those in the lowest income categories a tax break of $6.

You can see where the priorities have been when it comes to taxes. But ask the average family making about $100,000 a year--let's take that as an example. Let's take someone who is a teacher and whose spouse may work part time, bringing in some income to the family, and together they make $100,000 a year. They have raised their kids and spent good money sending them to school. Then the kids apply to college. The families are inundated with a stack of forms--most families have seen them--to apply for student loans and students grants. Those making about $100,000 a year will find it difficult to apply for any financial assistance. So the students, their sons and daughters who finally got into the school of their dreams, may face an unconscionable debt.

Some students put off their education. Some give up on the best schools. Some go on to school and graduate with a mountain of debt, a mountain of debt which was made worse this year when, on July 1, a law signed by President Bush increased the interest rates on student loan debts by 2 percent. It doesn't sound like much, except it means the payback for that student loan has now been increased by 20 percent over the life of the loan. It means these students, borrowing money to go to school, deeper in debt, will now be paying off their student loan debt into their 50s. Imagine that student graduating today--23, 24 years

old, maybe--looking ahead to 20 or 30 years of paying off student loan debt. Finally, in their early 50s, they have paid it all off, and now they have a few years to contemplate their retirement.

What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong is students and families in middle-income circumstances are bearing this burden, and this burden is increasing, as I will show, as the cost of college education increases. So instead of talking about a $38,000 tax break for someone who makes $1 million a year, we believe on this side of the aisle that we should allow the deductibility of college education expenses. If you can deduct the amount of interest you pay on your home to encourage home ownership, why shouldn't a family be able to deduct some of the costs of college education from their tax expenses so we can encourage students to go on, further their education, and make this a better country? It is a question of tax priorities: on one side of the aisle, estate tax relief for those in the highest income categories; on this side of the aisle, we are talking about relief when it comes to tax deduction for the real cost of college education expenses.

Most of the families I represent in Illinois were quick to tell me, during the August break, how bad gasoline prices were. We know in the last 5 years they have increased 104 percent. They started coming down in the Midwest, but I think there is a false sense of security here. A lot of people were sacrificing to put more gasoline in the car, but we still don't have a national energy policy, and there is no guarantee that a few weeks from now those gasoline prices will not go back up again because we have no bargaining power.

We are so dependent on foreign oil today that we can't say to those who gouge us and those who want to really charge us the most that there is anything we will do about it. And this administration has not really called the oil company executives in, Exxon and others, to explain the absolutely unprecedented level of profits they took as the gasoline prices went up. That industry made more money more quickly than any industry in America, and they reached higher profit levels than any industry had recorded previously. Yet this administration sat back and said w can do nothing about it as Americans and families and businesses and farmers paid the price. As the cost of gasoline goes up, as prices have in the last several months, families have faced that sacrifice. Now comes the heating oil season for many, and that may again increase the cost of expenses for these families.

Take a look at what has happened as well when it comes to family health insurance premiums under this administration. Family health insurance premiums have increased 71 percent in the last 5 years. That means the average premium for family health insurance went from $6,348 when President Bush took office to $10,880. Is it any wonder families are feeling the squeeze? These premium increases, of course, translate into another $300 or $400 each month that a family has to come up with just to have the same health insurance as last year and maybe less coverage.

Have we discussed expanding health insurance or making it more affordable on the floor of the Senate? Only once and just for a few days. I salute Senator Enzi, Republican from Wyoming, chairman of the HELP Committee, for bringing a health insurance proposal to the floor. We had another proposal here. We tried, if we could, to work out something ahead of time to have a bipartisan approach. We didn't get it done. I hope that in the next Congress, we can find a way to bring real relief on a bipartisan basis to families that are struggling with these health insurance premiums.

I mentioned earlier the cost of education and student loans. This graph shows what has happened under this administration since the President took office with regard to the increased costs of college. They have gone up

$3,688, the average annual cost of a public 4-year college, tuition, fees, room, and board. So there was a 44-percent increase in just this 5-year period of time under this administration, increase in college cost. Again, wouldn't our Tax Code be more sensible if we helped families pay this difference, if we helped them put their kids through college to get a good degree and a good life and contribute to this country? Wouldn't that be a higher priority in terms of our Tax Code than whether Bill Gates is going to end up being excused from paying an estate tax when he passes away?

There is also a concern as well with retirement plans. Take a look at what has happened in the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, 3.7 million fewer Americans have retirement plans. The number of workers with employer-sponsored retirement plans has gone down from 56.2 million to 52.5 million, which means more vulnerability.

A lot of people who had paid into a retirement plan through the course of their work experience believed that they had paid their dues, taken the money out of their check every week, and that the day would come and they would see it, that they would finally get to retire and relax. Then came mergers and consolidations and corporate sleight of hand and legal work, and the next thing you know a lot of these pensions started disappearing. So many families are concerned, concerned about when or if they can retire.

You read the stories in the paper all the time in Illinois and every other State about those who had their future plans wrecked when they lost their pension benefits. It has happened at the airlines. It has happened in so many industries across our country. We know it makes a real difference in life. A lot of people who thought they would be spending their time worrying about where to go fishing now are acting as greeters at stores around America and trying to find part-time jobs just to keep it together.

We need to do something about retirement in this country, and one thing we do not need to do is privatize Social Security. Privatizing Social Security is, of course, supported by the President but not by the American people. They know the math doesn't work. Taking money out of the Social Security trust fund for people to experiment with their investments is going to weaken that fund unfortunately. They will be unable to make the payments our Social Security retirees need. If there is ever a time when we need Social Security to be strong, it is now, as we see fewer and fewer Americans with retirement plans.

The number of Americans without health insurance has gone up dramatically under this administration, from 39.8 million Americans with no health insurance to 46.6 million Americans. Those who are insured will tell you many times that their health insurance is not very good. They come up to me at town meetings in Illinois and talk about frightening scenarios where someone in their family had a serious illness, a diagnosis, and then when they tried to pay off the medical bills, it turns out the health insurance fought them all the way. These health insurance companies are spending a lot less on care and a lot more on battles with the people who have the health insurance, denying coverage whenever they can. So we have to really get back to this issue as part of the priorities of this Congress. I am sorry that this Republican Congress has not really come up with assistance that many of these Americans need with health insurance

Overall, as we go through this litany, you can understand as you go through this litany why this next chart is where it is today. In the last 5 years, under this administration, household debt has gone up over $26,000. Because Americans are struggling to make ends meet, because the cost of college and health care and gasoline and heating your home has gone up dramatically, Americans have had to borrow more and more just to keep up. They are right on the edge, trying to pay off very expensive credit card debt.

There has been a 35-percent increase in household debt in the last 5 years for the reasons I mentioned earlier, from an average inflation- adjusted debt per household of $75,000 to over $101,000. This debt is hanging over the heads of many Americans, and if there is any rock in the road that Americans families trip over--if someone gets sick, loses a job, a divorce, something unforeseen--they are going to find themselves then facing default on their debt and even higher interest rates.

While this has been going on for the average American, employee compensation has gone down some 4.6 percent. So while all the debts have been

piling up, the compensation that is being given to individuals has been going down. Meanwhile, corporate profits are up 8 percentage points. So we can see that the share of corporate income going to profits and employee compensation has gone in opposite directions, and those directions do not benefit those families that are struggling to get by.

Those who run the corporations are doing quite well, thank you. In the last 5 years, the pay for the chief executive officers of major corporations in America has gone up over $1.6 million individually. This average pay here of $5.2 million when the President took office is now up to $6.8 million. So while the pay for employees is going down and expenses are going up, in the boardrooms the median CEO compensation has gone up substantially.

When you take a look at the tax cuts under this administration, their economic record, tax cuts are over 150 times larger for millionaires than they are for most households in America. So we gave the tax cuts of $103,000 for those in the highest income levels and $684 for those making less than $100,000 a year. So the so-called tax cut program has not really helped those families struggling the hardest.

What has happened to employment, creation of jobs in America, is illustrated by this chart. We have seen the average annual growth rate of nonfarm employment in America under every President. You have to go back to Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression to see a decline of 6 percent in employment in America. You will see the lowest number of any President since Herbert Hoover has been registered by this administration, in the creation of jobs. That is the average annual growth rate of nonfarm employment. It is the slowest job growth in America in over 70 years.

The other sad reality is, while all of these things have taken place, this represents the famous wall of debt which Senator Conrad of North Dakota has brought to our attention over and over again. When President Bush took office, our national debt was $5.8 trillion. Today, it is over $8.5 trillion--a dramatic increase in America's debt in a 6-year period of time. With policies which this administration supports and many on the other side have been arguing for, we can see America's debt reaching $11.6 trillion in 2011. So in a 10-year period of time, we will have virtually doubled--not quite but almost doubled--the debt of America, which means we are leaving a burden for our children, a burden with which they will have to deal--a burden with which they will have to deal as we see more and more baby boomers in Social Security and Medicare. As we see fewer people working, those who remain in the workforce will not only have to face their own personal challenges economically, but they will have to deal with the debt that we are leaving behind.

If this is fiscal conservatism, I don't understand the meaning of the term.

Why is it that we have reached this point? Sadly, the economy is not going as planned. We are facing a war which costs between $1.5 billion and $3 billion every week, and the other side continues to come to the floor and ask for something that no administration has ever asked for in the history of the United States--a tax cut in the midst of a war. That is what the Senator from this morning was suggesting. He wants to cut the estate tax. By cutting the estate tax there will be less revenue for our Government, the war will continue, and our debt will grow. These numbers will have to be adjusted upwards for the debt we are going to leave our children.

Yesterday we had a hearing with the Democratic Policy Conference to discuss the war in Iraq. We had two generals and a Marine Corps colonel who spoke to us. They spoke on a lot of things that we need to do to make America safer and make sure we win this war in Iraq. But one thing that MG John Batiste said I really thought was important. He said--and I think we all believe--that America can rise to a challenge. America can meet a challenge. We have done it so many times in our history. We have won wars when we were not expected to. We put a man on the Moon when a lot of people scoffed at that possibility. We developed medical breakthroughs which no one would have dreamed of. We led the world in computer technology development and in so many areas one by one. Whether it was in agricultural production or in industrial development or innovation we have led the world. We have led the world because leaders have stepped forward--a President has stepped forward and challenged us and said we need to stick together, we need to work together to reach the goal.

General Batiste said yesterday--and I paraphrase his actual testimony, but I believe what he said. He said that what we need to be reminded of is we can meet any challenge as a nation. We need to be reminded, as well, if we are challenged and work together, we can win this war on terrorism. And he said it is going to involve sacrifice. It is not the first time Americans have been asked to sacrifice. They have done that many times. I believe that spirit of sacrifice is what is needed to make sure we keep America safe from terrorism and safe from other threats.

I see that Senator Ensign has come to the floor. I don't know whether he wishes to take the floor at this time. But I mentioned his name earlier. I commended him for bringing the health insurance issue to the floor. I hope in the next session that we can work together to try to find some bipartisan compromise to deal with this health insurance challenge. It is still out there and getting more challenging every day. Senator Enzi of Wyoming, as Republican chair of the committee, may have been the first one to bring the health issue to the floor of the Senate in the 10 years I have been here. I commend him for that.

Although we didn't see eye to eye on all of that, I hope we come back together and sit down and try to find some common bipartisan approach no matter who is in charge of the Senate in the next session.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message form the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 843) to combat autism through research, screening, intervention and education.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we just passed the combating autism bill that we have been working on for 16 months. I thank Senator Dodd for his tremendous work on that. I thank all of the autism groups. I thank Jennifer Vesey for the tremendous work she did and the hours and hours and patience it takes to put together complex and important pieces of legislation.

Later today, or tomorrow, we are going to pass the abandoned mine lands bill. I would love to say that was Rick Santorum, but it was Ashley Horning; it wasn't Rick Santorum. She did all the work. I pretty much knew what was in there, and I would negotiate the parts in disagreement. That is what we all do. But on 90 percent of the bills that most of us know about, we didn't hammer out the details; it was done by folks who have the commitment and vision and effort and work the long hours to make the legislation possible. It is important that in Pennsylvania now we will get a billion dollars to clean up abandoned mines--it is a tremendous contribution to the environment--or miners will have health care coverage paid because, in part, I had a terrific staff person. I can go down through issue after issue and look at these accomplishments that would be great to stand up and say that I did, but I had a tremendous amount of help. I had incredibly talented, gifted people who worked incredible hours.

What most people across America don't realize is how hard our people around here work. They don't do it for the money. They don't do it because they have some agenda to accomplish. They do it because they want to improve America, make America a better place. They want to leave this place better than how they found it. They want to serve because they love this country and they believe in what will make this country better. They work long hours. They don't get paid as much as they could make if they wandered off the Hill. I will put my folks, both in Washington and across the State, up against anybody. They are sitting in the gallery and here along the railing. They have given their all and I thank them. They served the people of Pennsylvania. Looking at Kevin Roy over there, I think of all of the earmarks--that is a dirty word--that we were able to get to help the people in Pennsylvania in so many ways. I look at work we did for the nonprofit community and welfare and families, and Melanie Looney and her team worked on that.

It has been an incredible group. Our Senate conference, the message folks--it was awfully hard. Republicans are not good on the old message issue. We don't follow our talking points very well. We try. We try. We have a lot of independent thinkers on our side. God bless them. They always have a better way of saying things than what we suggest or actually not even saying things, thinking things than what we suggest. That is the beauty of our party. We have a lot of diversity within our party.

We have some very talented people who work very hard, not just a dry message to spin, but to try to move the debate, try to get our causes articulated in a way that is communicated effectively to people across America. They worked hard. They built coalitions. They did their best, and I thank them for their effort and the tremendous service they have given our conference.

I thank the folks in my district offices. Most of those folks have been with me 16 years. We don't have a lot of turnover in our office. A lot of folks in Pittsburgh have been with me 16 and others around the State have been with me 12 years. They are dedicated people who go out and do those security checks and veterans benefits and medals.

I will always remember one story that happened this last year. There was a man, a World War II vet named Patrick. I was at a ribbon-cutting for a VA facility in Oakland in Pittsburgh. While I was there, we arranged a little medal presentation to a veteran who had sought a medal and was never given that medal. That is all I knew about it. I showed up. There was this older gentleman sitting in the front row. His name was Patrick.

Patrick was a World War II veteran who served in Patton's army and was sent on a secret mission to try to liberate a POW camp. In that mission, he was captured. He was imprisoned for several months, I believe, in a German POW camp. When he got out of the Army, he requested a POW medal, but the paperwork didn't show he had been captured. It was a secret mission, and it never appeared on his military record.

For 60 years, Patrick fought to get his designation as a POW. He never married. In fact, later in his life after he retired from work, he became somewhat of a recluse because he was kidded by some of his buddies about being a POW. It affected him dramatically, so much so that one of his friends and relatives contacted us to say: Is there anything you can do? Could it possibly be true?

Ann Blocksidge in my office in Pittsburgh, wizard that she is with these issues that she has been working on now for 16 years, knew the places to call and put the records together. We found out, yes, he was, and that was in one place in one record and not in the same place as the other record, and A didn't talk to B. So we were able to get him his POW medal.

I remember pinning it on him. This older man walked to the microphone. He said: There is one thing I want to say. He said: I finally feel welcomed home.

It is a great story, but the folks in my office and offices all over this Capitol do this every day because they care, because the people call with impossible things, and our folks do impossible things to help them.

I thank all of them for all the service they have done, for doing what I ask them to do when they come into the office: Treat every caller as if it is your grandmother calling. If you treat every caller as if it is your grandmother--hopefully they get along with their grandmother--then things will be fine.

I thank my colleagues. This place gets a lot of ridicule. It is very easy to criticize people in the fishbowl. It is very easy to take shots at people for not living up to expectations, and certainly we all do not live up to expectations. But I think I can say without any reservation that the men and women in this body are good and decent people who are doing what they believe is best for this country.

I know many people find that hard to believe because they look at people and they have beliefs so diametrically opposed to people in this Chamber. I certainly have views--and have demonstrated that on many occasions on the floor of the Senate--that are diametrically opposed to many people in this Chamber. But in my heart, I never questioned the integrity and the sincerity of the people who articulated their opinions, that they were not sincere. I believed them to be sincere and I believed them to believe that it was in the best interest of the country. That is what is supposed to happen here. Ideas are to be debated, points of view are to be discussed, and the prevailing thought of the day will move the country in that direction.

There are very good people here. I tell the people of America: There are very good people here. There are people here on both sides of the aisle who pray every single day for God's guidance. There are people here today who, while we fight and argue, do so out of a passion for doing what is right.

I thank my colleagues for the courtesies they have shown me, and particularly my Republican colleagues for the honor they have given me to serve in the leadership for 6 years. I know that was not an easy decision back in 2001 to elect someone who had a reputation of being somewhat of a bomb thrower in the House and in my early Senate days to a position of leadership in the Senate. They took a risk. I hope they feel it has paid off.

It has certainly been a great blessing to me to have been able to serve my colleagues in the capacity of conference chairman.

It is an incredible group of people. I think of John, who is my tennis partner. We played our first match after I was defeated, and he beat me 6-love, 6-1. He thinks it is because he played better, but I am just preparing for other employment.

We have prayer groups here. One of the most important things in my life over the past 12 years has been the Senate prayer group, the Senate Bible study, and the prayer breakfasts, the small prayer group with which I have been involved. I don't know how people do it. I don't know how people do this business without prayer, without an understanding that there is something bigger than us here, something that will help us, guide us, lift us up at times when there seems to be no other reason to be lifted up.

I thank all of those who prayed with me and prayed for me. Lloyd Ogilvie, a chaplain here for many years, and Barry Black, our Chaplain now--they are prayer warriors for all of us. I know they pray for us every day. I know Lloyd still prays for us every day, and I know millions of Americans pray for us every day. I thank all of them for helping me through and helping us and helping our country through these difficult times.

I thank our leader, Bill Frist, my first leader I served under as a member of the leadership, Trent Lott, and the leader I served under when I came to the Senate, Bob Dole. Each and every one of them in their own way led differently. But in the case of Senator Dole, he was a larger-than-life figure to me, coming over to the Senate as a 36- year-old Senator. He was on his way to run for the Presidency. He took the time to be concerned about the issues that were important to me. He put me on the committees I needed to be on and gave me the opportunity that I will never forget and certainly will always be thankful for--to manage and work on the welfare reform bill back in 1996.

Of all the things I accomplished in the Senate, there is nothing I am more proud of than what we did in 1996 to reform the welfare system and transition it so millions and millions would fall off the rolls, find gainful employment, and change their lives and the lives of their families. I owe that to Bob Dole. He gave me the opportunity to stand at that manager's chair for months in my second year in the Senate and taking on what I would argue was the most important piece of legislation in that session of the Congress, the Republican revolution.

I thank Trent Lott not only for his tutelage and mentoring me in the time I have been here as a leader, but for helping me in gaining leadership and being involved in the leadership in the Senate.

I thank Bill Frist for his friendship. His coming in as a leader when I was already in the leadership was a little different. He didn't come in and point the finger and boss around, but he came in to learn. He came in to engage, to try to take the knowledge that was in the leadership group and use it to build a stronger group. I appreciate that.

There is a humility in Bill Frist. It is a very attractive quality and, I might also add, a rather rare quality if one is in the Senate, but a very attractive one and a very important one in Senators and leaders.

I thank, I guess finally, the people of Pennsylvania. I was talking to Jim Towey. Jim is the new president of Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, PA. Jim is the former director of the faith-based office for the President. I called him the other day. He said: You know, Rick, I have been here--I think he said 6 months. He said: I really like the State, like the area, good people. But the more I study the State and the more I get the feel of Pennsylvania, I have one question: It is not how did you lose the election, but how did you get elected here twice?

I got elected twice because I had a lot of wonderful people who campaigned hard, worked hard, and believed in me and were able to maybe see past some of the differences with me to give me an opportunity to serve here, and I am eternally grateful.

It is an incredible State. It is one I got to know very well and, obviously, got to know thousands of people. I had the opportunity to serve them. I had the opportunity to be scolded by them, reprimanded by them. But I always understood they were my employers. I work for them. And when you work for somebody, sometimes they are going to tell you they don't like the job you are doing. And you better act like someone who is an employee instead of an employer or you are not going to find yourself as an employee very much longer. Well, I tried to act like an employee. But that doesn't mean I always had to agree with my employer, and a lot of times I didn't. And maybe I spoke up too often too loudly and too boldly on some of the things that my employer didn't agree with. I hope they respect the fact that it was a heartfelt disagreement and that I did what I did and I said what I said because I believed it was in their best interests, even though they may not have thought so.

I respect the fact that I didn't win this election and that the people of Pennsylvania made a different decision. I had an opportunity to meet with my successor today in my office and get a chance to talk with him about some of the ins and outs of the Senate. He is a good man, and he will do a good job. I hope the people of Pennsylvania will give him and extend to him the same courtesies and trust and cooperation that so many Pennsylvanians who didn't agree with me on a lot of things but knew that it was important to work together--such as our Governor, Ed Rendell, whom I worked with as mayor and as Governor, as well as I did with any Republican that I know--I hope that Republican officeholders in Pennsylvania treat my opponent with the same kind of respect and the same kind of cooperation that Governor Rendell and I have had over the years.

That brings me to my colleague, Senator Specter. It was very kind of Arlen to come and say a few words. He said that we are not only colleagues in the Senate and, obviously, colleagues from Pennsylvania, but we are friends. I have to tell my colleagues, when I first came to the Senate, I thought it was a very long shot that I would be friends with Arlen Specter. All I had

heard about Arlen Specter was how prickly a character he is, how difficult he is, sort of cold and tough. But he is a pretty soft guy. He really is. He gets those granddaughters around him and he just melts. No, he is a good man. I don't agree with Arlen a lot, and of course everybody knows that, but Arlen has been a good partner. We have worked on a lot of things together. And even when we disagreed, we understood and respected the disagreement and didn't let it affect us, or certainly our relationship, or if it was important enough to us and important enough to the State and important enough to the country, we worked hard to try to bridge those differences. I think that is a good model. I recommend it to my successor. I recommend it to all my colleagues.

This place doesn't have to be as personally confrontational as it is. I say that as someone who was pretty personally combative when I first came here. I know that I have had some pretty strident debates on the floor of the Senate, but I will tell my colleagues that in my heart, it was never personal, it was always about what the issue was about. And it is hard for a lot of people in America who look at it in a culture that takes everything personally--people have asked me why I have been so comfortable and at ease with what has happened, and it is because I don't take it personally. People disagree with where I wanted to take this country, and that is fine. They will have an opportunity to take it someplace else, for now.

But I don't take it personally. I look at the empty desks of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I look at each and every one and I can see them all sitting there, and I can't think of one that I would take a disagreement with personally--and I have had disagreements with virtually every one but all of them have disagreed, hopefully without being personally disagreeable. That is how this place works. It is the only way it can work and be successful for America.

In closing, I want to say that I always come back to the word ``gratitude.'' To God, to my family, to my colleagues, to the wonderful people who have worked for me and with me over the years, to the people of the 18th Congressional District, to the people of Pennsylvania: Thank you. Thank you. I don't know what I will be doing next, but I cannot imagine that anything I do in the future will rival the kind of blessings I have felt from all of the folks whom I have mentioned. The relationships and the wonderful accomplishments and the great spirit I have experienced over these last 16 years is something that I am eternally grateful for to all of those involved. It has been a great blessing.

I thank my colleagues, I thank those who came and listened, those who might be listening in other ways, but I thank them, personally, for the great kindness they have shown me. I leave a very happy and contented former Senator from Pennsylvania who feels very blessed.

Exhibit 1

Senate Personal Office Employees

Aho, Robert W; Anderson, Thomas S; Armata, Andrew M T;

Baldwin, Todd A; Barbera, Vincent M; Barron, Bruce A;

Bashore, Keith E; Beresnyak, Allison M; Beresnyak, Thomas E

Jr.; Bernier, George M III; Bernstein, Luke M; Berry, Donna

A; Bertuola, Lawrence J; Beynon, Matthew E; Bickhart, Robert

G; Blocksidge, Anne M; Bonesso, Rozzanna J; Bowman, Patricia

Dianne; Bowser, Julia E; Boyd, Allison J.

Bozzuto, Robert F; Bragg, Heather N; Broughton, Aaron

Michael; Brown, Brian T; Burkhalter, Colin J; Butler, Timothy

R; Caldwell, Stanley D; Calka, Courtney JO; Carlson, Michael

R; Carter, Andrew C; Castillo, Michael J; Chapman, Elizabeth

R; Christman, David R; Clater, Michael D; Cognato,

Christopher; Cognato, Michael H; Coleman, Samuel E; Collins,

Leah R; Conklin, Jennifer M; Coppolo, Stephen D.

Corman, Jacob D III; Coulter, Kathryn A; Covel, Michelle F;

Crane, Rebecca H; Curry, Margaret K; Daniel, Kelly L;

Davidek, Jason E; Davis, Mary Elizabeth A; Davis, Virginia L;

Dermody, Brandon D; Devito, William J; Dick, John T; Diehl,

Samuel W; Dougherty, Kara A; Doyle, Lyda A; Dutkowski,

Margaret C; Ely, Ramona J; Ensslin, Mary T; Evans, Andrea L;

Faulk, Page C.

Faustino, Mary A; Feenstra, Paul A; Feller, Meredith L;

Fergusen, Sarah E; Ferrara, Lorenzo L; Finney, Thomas S;

Fischer, Karen E; Fratto, Salvatore A; French, David G;

French, John M III; Galko, Vincent A; Garver, Nancy L;

Gaston, Shivellia T; Gemma, Peter B Jr.; Genesio, Christine

J; Gerry, Keith M; Gorman, Victoria Lynn; Greco, Michael P;

Greene, Charles M; Gresov, Winston G.

Gutierrez, Jennifer C; Haberkern, Jeffery J; Hall, David M;

Harbula, David Scott; Harvey, Marcus W; Hershey, Jill E;

Hershey, Michael S; Hoadley, Cassandra; Holcombe, Sara K;

Hornbake, Lawrence E; Horne, Wesley O; Horning, Ashley E;

Howard, Jaime L; Hybels, Amy R; Irvine, Walter G Jr.; Irwin,

Christine E; Ivanov, Florina D; Johnson, Thomas O II;

Kauffman, Alexander J; Kelly, Caitlin B.

Kennedy, Brian D; Kinsman, Chelsea M; Kitchen, Michelle L;

Kocan, Sheila T; Koutsiouroumbas, Athan; Kuklis, Joseph V;

Laager, Maryanne R; Ladd, Abigail A; Larcinese, Mary E;

Laurenson, Craig A; Lebaudy, Laura A; Leidner, Kristina S;

Leinbach, Christian Y; Lewandowski, Leslie L; Lindenberer,

Stephanie Ann; Lofton, Marian Victoria; Looney, Melanie L;

Lyle, Stephen T; Lynch, Stephanie F; Maclean, Heather Marie.

Maddox, Audrey C; Maguire, Erin K; Mahon, Emmet M; Maines,

Laura A; Martin, David; Martin, John E Jr.; Mattei, Thomas J

Jr.; Matthews, Shawnna Lee; Mcclard, Melissa J; Mccoy, Ida M;

Mccracken, David E; Mccree, Michael R; Mcdonald, Robin V;

Mcelwee, George S; Mcginley, Christopher P; Mckeon, Meredith;

Mcnamara, Kevin M; Medina, Wanda I; Meyer, Christine M;

Mihalke, Michael H.

Miller, Eric R; Miller, Jennifer L; Miller, Manda B;

Miller, Nicole M; Miller, William A; Mitchell, Anna K;

Mitchell, Marcus P; Mizer, Erica L; Molineaux, Peter J;

Moore, Thomas; Moore, Zachery P; Morinigo, Nicholas; Morton,

Bylly Jo; Mullen, James G; Narcavage, Michael III; Navin,

Lawrence M; Ohara, Gerald J; Oshea, Joseph J; Pallotto, Adam

R; Palmer, Wayne D.

Park, Victoria P; Parrick-Cox, Susan; Patel, Kajal A;

Pavlik, Bonnie M; Peacock, Deborah A; Pearson, Tim; Perez,

Janet M; Petraglia, Amy W; Poteet, Paul W; Preate, Alexandra

V; Pugh, Jennifer S; Quinn, Christine Marie; Rajsic,

Michelle; Ramos, Josephina; Reilly, Sean M; Reyes, Jeremy;

Rhodes, Allison L; Riegel, Ellen J; Rockwell, Russel A; Rode,

Katherine R.

Rodgers, Lincoln R C; Roman, Lisa M; Romaniello, Catherine

M; Roscoe, Abigail; Rossi, Connie J; Rossman, Eleanor T; Roy,

Kevin F; Ryan, Maureen; Sailhamer, Brent A; Salvesen, Erling

R III; Sanborn, Alden R; Sanders, Joseph E Jr.; Sarmir,

Danielle; Scanlan, Tricia L; Scaringi, M Anthony; Schmidt,

Keith A; Schmidt, Michele E; Sears, William P; Sechler,

Michael W; Shaner, Mathias R.

Sharp, Crystal N; Sharp, Trudy R; Shelby, Melissa B;

Sheriff, Marie A; Shirk, Jamie E; Shott, Christine M;

Simodejka, Jill L; Sinha, Sushant K; Smith, Brian A; Smith,

Jacob W; Solfanelli, Matthew; Soroka, Suzanne M; Sosar,

Edward D; Spangler, Courtney Leigh; Sparvero, Emily S;

Stawasz, Karen L; Stein, Peter J; Stephans, Elizabeth L;

Stolnacher, Patricia L; Stoltzfoos, Gerald D.

Stoltzfoos, Jeffery L; Strickland, Carolyn; Strothman,

Alexis A; Stuart, Robert R; Swain, Tooshar K; Swartz, Barbara

K; Sweeny, Jennifer Mahurin; Sybyl, Julie M; Szy, Daniel J;

Taylor, David N; Tekel, Adam R; Thompson, Holly; Titus-Young,

Joy J; Traynham, Robert L; Trego, Joshua S; Tulyasathein,

Charnsin; Turner, Michelle D; Urguhart, E Randy; Valdes,

Stephen G; Vanderpool, Kristen R.

Vesey, Jennifer L; Voinski, John A; Vulakovich, Randolph P;

Walker, Patricia B; Wall, Toni B; Walters, Christopher F;

Watson, D Dexter; Weaver, Chad A; Weber, David; Weiss, Todd

M; White, Jennifer S; Wiesenfeld, Michael A; Williamson, N

Kathy; Willis, Jessica R; Wittman, Anne E; Wright, Erica

Clayton; Wusinich, Maria T; Yanoshak, Erica M; Younger,

Anita.

Senate Republican Conference Employees

Amy Marie Adams; Jeff Hunt; Garrett Fahy; Joel Digrado;

Kate Harris; Shonda Werry; Cris Clapp; Melissa Seckora

Anderson; Elizabeth Keys; Barbara Ledeen; Chrissy Shott;

Sarah Berk; Mark Rodgers; Randy Brandt; Katherine Gonzalez;

Carlos Gonzalez; Lane Marshall; Cyrus Pearson; Robert

Traynham; Henry Peterson; Chris Angrisani; Laura Gill.

Nick Schweich; Aaron Broughton; Tim Petty; Curtis Swager;

Nate Green; David Song; Michael Bleicher; Jen Sweeney; Joy

Schmidt; Eden Gordon; Susana Levenson; Eric Miller; Chris

Myers; Rebecca Cotton; Drew Cantor; Alex Kaufman; John

Rankin; Dan Ronayne; Eric Ruiz; Loredana Vouto; Deidre

Woodbyrne.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is overly generous. I learned as a staff aide in the Senate that if an idea has many fathers and many mothers, it has a much better chance of moving along than if it just has one.

Senator Domenici is being overly modest about his own role. This would not have gotten to first base--by ``this,'' I mean the competitiveness legislation--had not Senator Domenici created the environment in which it could succeed, and if he and Senator Bingaman had not had such a good partnership and been able to work together, set a good example and have been willing to step back and allow other good ideas that were progressing through the Commerce Committee and the HELP Committee.

It has been a remarkable exercise in restraint for many distinguished Senators, some among the most senior Members of the Senate, and at a time when politics is at a pretty high level.

I thank the Senator for what he said. It means a lot to me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of the National Competitiveness Investment Act.

Mr. President, although most cannot hear it right now, I want to say how much all in the Senate appreciate the extra hours and the skill with which the staffs met and worked through August and over the last several weeks to bring the three committees together. Senator Ensign played a major role, and his staff did. There were many staffs. This was not a bill that Republicans wrote and Democrats looked at or vice versa. We did it together.

Future of Higher Education

Mr. President, today the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, made an important speech at the National Press Club. In her remarks, she discussed the report from her Commission on the Future of Higher Education. This commission was chaired by Charles Miller, who was the former chairman of the board of regents of the University of Texas system and a leader in education reform at all levels.

I am very impressed with Secretary Spellings. I know her job. I once had it. I do not think we have had a more effective Secretary of Education. I am very impressed with Mr. Miller. I know about his work in Texas as part of a group of business leaders over the last 20 years who have led the country in terms of helping to set accountability standards in elementary and secondary education.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to read Secretary Spellings' speech from today.

Secretary Spellings is the first U.S. Secretary of Education to assume the role of lead adviser to coordinate all of higher education. I am glad she is doing that because almost every Department of the Federal Government has something to do with higher education. Currently, no one is the lead person for that. It ought to be the Secretary of Education. She stepped up to do it. I applaud her, and I applaud President Bush for asking her to do that.

The Secretary's recommendations in her speech today are sensible and respect the prerogative of Congress to make major changes in higher education policy. In plain English, she laid out some very good recommendations, but she recognized that is one branch of Government, we are the Article I branch of Government, and if there are major changes in policy, we will make them here, and then it is their job to implement it.

But among the strong recommendations in her report are the following: Simplify the financial aid system. We are already doing that, having worked with the Secretary on a commission, and it is included in the higher education bill that has not passed. That is a very good recommendation. Another recommendation is expanding more access to more students. The initial cost estimates of her commission's report suggest its recommendations might cost $9 billion or $10 billion more in terms of Pell grants. That is a lot of money, but it is an important goal.

Another recommendation is increased competitiveness. The Secretary's commission spent quite a bit of time urging the Congress and the country to adopt the recommendations of the Augustine commission, to adopt the recommendations of the Council on Competitiveness, and to adopt the President's recommendations on competitiveness. That was a help in getting us come to the point in this body where tonight Senator Frist and Senator Reid will introduce the National Competitiveness Investment Act.

The Secretary's committee recommended less regulation for higher education, which is something I want to talk a little bit more about in a moment. I thoroughly agree with that. And, of course, another recommendation is to find ways to reduce costs, which every family who has a student headed toward higher education thinks about. In our own family, where we have two new grandchildren who are less than 1 year of age, the parents--our children--are already thinking about it: How in the world are we going to pay for college out of our budgets in 18 years? That is at the top of almost everyone's concern.

I want to wave one bright, yellow flag, a cautionary flag, at one troubling aspect of the report of the Secretary's commission. That is best captured by the following sentence on page 13 of the commission's report, and I quote: ``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary education system has no comprehensive strategy, particularly for undergraduate programs, to provide either adequate internal accountability systems or effective public information.''

``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary education system has no comprehensive strategy. . . .'' The commission apparently believes that is a weakness. I believe that is a strength. I believe that is the greatest strength of our higher education system. The key to the quality of the American higher education system is that it is not one system, but that it is a marketplace of over 6,000 autonomous systems, independent systems.

These autonomous or independent institutions--such as the University of Tennessee, or Fisk University, or the Nashville Auto Diesel College, or Yeshiva University--these institutions are regulated primarily by competition--competition for students, for faculty, and for research dollars--and by consumer choice, which is fueled by generous Federal dollars that follow more than one-half of American college students to the institutions of their choice.

There is, in addition, a system of independent accreditation to help regulate these independent and autonomous institutions. To be sure, there is still plenty of the traditional kind of command-and-control Government regulation. That is very hard to get away from. Every State has a regulatory body, such as the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. And each of the 6,000 institutions I described that accepts students with Federal grants or loans must wade through over 7,000 Federal regulations and notices. Those regulations exist today.

The president of Stanford University has said that 7 cents of every tuition dollar is spent on compliance with Government regulations. The last thing American higher education needs is a barrage of new Federal regulations requiring sending new data to Washington so someone here can try to figure out how to improve the Harvard Classics Department or the Nashville Auto Diesel College, both of whose students are eligible for Federal grants and loans.

I believe the overregulation of higher education is the greatest deterrent to maintaining the quality of American higher education, and that autonomy, competition, and choice are the greatest incentives to excellence.

I would, therefore, wish to lead the bandwagon or be on the bandwagon or

push the bandwagon for more deregulation and to increase the autonomy of institutions of higher education and to preserve competition for research dollars and to give students the broadest array of education choices possible.

Today in America we are doing that much better than any other country in the world. It is instructive that China and several European countries are deregulating their overly bureaucratized colleges and universities to try to catch up with the quality of ours. Of course, better information informs choices. And, of course, easier transfer policies between or among institutions could increase opportunities. Much is to be gained from research that will help institutions measure what value their classes add to students.

But I do not want rules about transfer policies to diminish institutional autonomy. I do not want to see rules from Washington substitute for choice and competition as the principal regulators of the quality of our colleges and universities. I do not want to see even more tuition dollars go to pay for complying with costly Government regulations instead of to improving research and teaching in the classroom.

By design or luck, the United States has created a magnificent marketplace environment that has resulted in, by far, the best higher education system in the world with remarkable access for students of all incomes. Our goal should be to improve that system, not to replace it with some command-and-control structure.

Mr. President, I spoke before the Secretary's Commission on December 9 of 2005, and I hope that those remarks were useful to the Commission.

Mr. President, I want to comment that it is important to keep all of this discussion in some perspective. For example, there is a great concern about the rising cost of tuition. Secretary Spellings, in her remarks, says she wants to know why. Well, I know why it has gone up. It has gone up because State funding for higher education has been flat. It has actually gone down in many cases. As State funding of colleges and universities in Minnesota or Tennessee or South Dakota has gone down, colleges and universities have had to raise their tuition to have enough funds to maintain quality.

Now, of course, there are plenty of ways to reduce costs, and we need to push that and encourage that. And the Secretary has many suggestions for that. She is right about that. But let's not overlook the fact that Federal spending for higher education has gone way up in the last several years, but State spending has been flat. If anyone wants to know why your tuition bills are higher, it is because your Governors and your legislatures have not been paying their fair share of what it takes to have a quality system of higher education in America. I talked about that in my testimony to the Commission, and I hope they listened to that. I hope the Administration and my colleagues understand that as well.

For example, during the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004, State spending for Medicaid, which is where the Governors have to put most of their extra money, was up 36 percent; State spending for higher education was up barely 7 percent. As a result, tuition went up 38 percent.

There is another way I think about it. When I left the Governor's office nearly 20 years ago in Tennessee, Tennessee was spending 51 cents of every State tax dollar on education and 16 cents on health care--mainly Medicaid. Today, instead of 51 cents on education, it is 40 cents on education. And instead of 16 cents on health care, it is 26 cents on health care. So if we do not get control of Medicaid spending here in this Chamber, and in the other Chamber, one of the unintended consequences will be that we will drive down the quality of higher education all across America because it will not have appropriate State funding and we will not create the new jobs that will help us compete with China and India.

On the question of cost, two other things: One is, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record a short column by the president of the University of Maryland, William E. Kirwan, who discusses State funding that I have just talked about, and talks about what some colleges and universities are doing to reduce costs to help control the rise of tuition.

Sometimes we talk so much about the high cost of higher education where families hear that and think no one can go to college. I was president of the University of Tennessee. Tuition has gone up there for the reasons I just talked about. But today tuition at the University of Tennessee, which is one of the leading research institutions in this country--the manager of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory--is $5,300 a year. It is $5,300 a year for tuition at the University of Tennessee. That is more than a lot of people have, but that is a very good bargain in today's marketplace.

Volunteer State Community College, a public 2-year college--we encourage many people to go to community colleges, and then to our research universities--the tuition there is $2,383 a year.

At Tennessee State University, in Nashville--an excellent institution--it is $4,300. It is the same story in many other States. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for North Carolina students--one of the best universities in the world--it is $4,500 a year. At the University of Phoenix--a different kind of university, but I had a distinguished scientist from the University of Texas tell me he looked at colleges of education all over America, and he thought the college of education at the University of Phoenix was as good as any to get your teacher's degrees--the comparable cost there for a year's tuition is about $6,669. They do things a little differently, but they provide an education and a service that many people are asking for, and I think that reflects the strength of our autonomous system of higher education.

Now, if you want to go to Harvard, it is a lot more. If you want to go to Vanderbilt, it is a lot more. But the rest of that story is, if you show up at Harvard, or if you are admitted to Vanderbilt, and you do not have the money, they are going to do their best to help you pay for that.

So I would hope as we talk about the cost of higher education that we recognize that many of the State institutions are reasonably priced, that the failure of State funding over the last several years is the principal culprit in the rising increase for public schools, and that we do not get carried away up here in Washington by thinking if we pass some more regulations here, somehow we are going to solve the problem, and we are going to make our higher education system better.

My main point is this: Our greatest threat to quality higher education is overregulation. And our greatest incentive for it is deregulation, choice, and competition. Those are the incentives I would like to preserve.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.