Community College Energy Training Act of 2009

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, together with my Republican colleague Senator Orrin Hatch, that will help the financial security of Federal judges and their families. It will do so without costing the Federal Government a penny.

Our bill, the Judicial Survivors Protection Act of 2009, will create an open season for active and senior federal judges to enroll in the Judicial Survivors' Annuities System, JSAS, if they are not currently enrolled. JSAS provides an annuity for the surviving spouses and dependent children of a deceased federal judge. Depending on the judge's length of service, the annuity for a surviving spouse can be as high as 50 percent of the judge's average annual salary, and the annuity for surviving dependent children can be as high as 20 percent.

In addition, our bill would provide an important health insurance benefit for the surviving family members of decease Federal judges. For a surviving spouse or dependent child to continue to receive health insurance coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefit, FEHB, program after the judge's death, the judge must have been enrolled in JSAS. Otherwise, they can no longer participate in FEHB.

Federal judges have only 6 months from the date of their appointment to sign up for JSAS and, for a variety of reasons, many do not do so. For example, many individuals take substantial pay cuts when they leave a law firm to become a Federal judge, and they are unable to afford JSAS contributions, which amount to a 2.2 percent of a judge's annual salary. Nearly 900 federal judges, representing about 40 percent of the federal judiciary, currently do not participate in JSAS. However, if given the opportunity, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts estimates between 200 and 300 judges would sign up.

Take, for example, the case of Judge Michael Mihm, who is a federal judge in the Central District of Illinois, my home State. Judge Mihm wrote a letter and said:

In 1982, when I came on the bench, the survivor's pension

(JSAS) was so bad that almost no incoming judge signed up for

it. Plus, the percentage of salary involved was very high. So

I didn't sign up for it then. In the early 90s I was a member

of the Judicial Branch Committee, and at that time the

Committee and the judiciary succeeded in getting a bill

passed that improved the benefits (established a 25% floor)

and the percentage of salary paid. There was an open season.

That would have been the time to join. However, at that time

I had four children attending private universities . . . I

simply couldn't afford to bring home a smaller paycheck. I

have for some time now been very interested in `buying in' to

the survivor's pension, that is, pay in everything I would

have paid in if I had joined during the open season, plus a

penalty amount for waiting until now to join.

I also received a letter from U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman in the Northern District of Illinois, who said: ``Especially given the circumstances of our current economic crisis, providing for my family in the event of a death is of urgent importance to me. I think I speak for many of those in my circumstance that I am happy to make a make-up payment and contribute a greater share of my income to participate in this program.''

The bill that Senator Hatch and I are introducing would allow Judge Mihm, Judge Gettleman, and the hundreds of other nonparticipating federal judges around the country to pay a penalty and buy into the JSAS program. Such judges would be required to pay an enhanced contribution rate of 2.75 percent of their salary each year rather than the 2.2 percent rate they would pay if they had enrolled within 6 months of taking office.

As a result, the cost of our bill would be borne by these new enrollees and not by the Federal Government or by previously enrolled judges. The Congressional Budget Office has conducted an informal review of this bill and determined that the cost of this bill is insignificant. Therefore, the bill would require no Federal funds and have no

PAYGO implications. The higher ongoing contribution rates for new enrollees will offset the value of any potential future liabilities that would be incurred by the JSAS fund, which currently has assets of over $500 million.

One of the highest priorities of the federal judiciary in recent years has been the pursuit of a pay raise. Federal judges have not received a pay raise from Congress since 1991, other than occasional cost-of living adjustments, and there is a concern that some of this Nation's best and brightest attorneys no longer seek Federal judgeships because of the financial sacrifice they and their families would have to make. The bill that Senator Hatch and I are introducing today would not raise the judicial pay of our federal judges, but it would at least provide a modest benefit that might make judicial service more tenable and more attractive. I hope Congress will take up and pass the Judicial Survivors Protection Act of 2009 as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senator Burr to help States improve quality and reduce the costs of health care for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees. The Medical Homes Act would create a pilot project in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program to encourage hospitals and health clinics to create a medical home for the low-income people they serve.

Those of us who have a medical home take it for granted. We see the same doctor, in the same setting, for extended periods of time. Our medical history is in one place, and even if we are seeing specialists or different doctors in the same practice, there is continuity in decisions about our health care.

But many people do not have this luxury. Think about people who move from place to place whose home lives are less than stable, who do not have health insurance, whose medical care is sporadic. For these members of our community, each visit to a clinic or an emergency room means starting over again.

Everyone should have access to a medical home, but it requires some changes in behavior and expectations and, perhaps most importantly, it requires a commitment by local providers to work together. The medical home model makes sense for improving health care for everyone. And it is a model of care that makes sense for stretching our limited Federal health care dollars.

States like Illinois and North Carolina are already seeing progress with implementing the medical home model. Illinois Health Connect is a new program at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services that uses the medical home model to deliver primary and preventive care for children and adults covered through the All Kids program. This emphasis on coordinated and ongoing care is leading to better health outcomes, and it is saving money.

Community Care of North Carolina launched a medical home model in 1998, through nine physician-led networks. North Carolina started by creating medical homes for 250,000 Medicaid enrollees. Today, it is a state-wide program that has saved the State at least $60 million in Medicaid costs in 2003 and $120 million in 2004.

Cost savings is not the only benefit. Several studies show that the medical home approach improves quality of care. Early analyses are finding that having regular access to a particular physician through the medical home is associated with earlier and more accurate diagnoses, fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospitalizations, lower costs, better care, and increased patient satisfaction. Many studies conclude that having both health insurance and a medical home leads to improved overall health for the entire population, which brings down the cost of care and reduces health care disparities.

The bill that Senator Burr and I introduce today would make it easier for other States to implement a medical home model, much like Illinois and North Carolina have. Congress passed a medical home demonstration project for Medicare last year. The Medical Homes Act of 2009 would do this for Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries by making Federal funding available for a demonstration project in 8 States to provide care through patient-centered medical homes.

The approach we propose requires a per-member, per-month care management fee to help pay for participating doctors and provides initial start-up funding for participating states. The start-up funds are used for the purchase of health information technology, primary care case managers, and other uses appropriate for the delivery of patient-centered care.

This is a critical time in our country We have a President who wants health care reform. We have a Congress ready to act. We have an historic level of cooperation among stakeholders. Unlike the last time, there is substantial agreement this time among insurers, employers, consumers and lawmakers on the need for change and the broad outlines of reform. Change will only happen if everyone--doctors, patients, insurance companies, everyone--work with each other, not against each other. The specifics of the reform package still have to be worked out--and that will be difficult. But there is broad agreement that we must do a better job of delivering health care, not just treatment for illness.

If patients, provider, payers, and the government continue to work together to create a system that values the patient more than payments and the health outcome of the patient more than the number of patients seen, we can really change the way primary care is provided. I urge my colleagues to support the Medical Homes Act of 2009 and help stabilize health care delivery for low-income Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favour of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which I am introducing with my colleague and friend on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins.

Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation, but time ran out before we were able to move the measure to the Senate floor.

I also want to thank my former cosponsor, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, with whom I and more than 20 other Senators introduced identical legislation in the 110th Congress. We expect about 20 cosponsors again this year, and I want to express my appreciation to them for helping us get an early enough start in the 111th Congress so that we can pass the bill, hopefully, this year.

This legislation makes eminent sense for two reasons: It will help the Federal Government attract the best and the brightest and it is the fair and right thing to do from a human rights perspective.

Let me explain. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act would provide the same employee benefit programs to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees that are now provided to the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. In other words, same-sex domestic partners--living in a committed relationship and unrelated by blood would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

When the domestic partners of Federal employees are granted the same benefits and obligations as the spouses of federal employees, the Federal Government will be able to attract from a larger pool of applicants the best possible employees to carry out the Government's responsibilities to the American people. In the coming years, as a large percentage of federal employees become eligible for retirement, a new generation of employees will be hired, and the Federal Government will be competing with the private sector for the most qualified among them. This legislation will help put the Federal Government on equal footing to compete for those new recruits and then retain them.

From a human rights perspective, this legislation is one more step on the long road to bring the gay and lesbian community equality under the law.

We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners who are not Federal employees.

We often hear--and I have often said--that Government should be run more like a business. While the purpose of Government and business are different, I believe Government has a lot to learn from private sector business models including in the matter before us today. The fact is that a majority of U.S. corporations--including more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer benefits to domestic partners.

General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among the major employers that have recognized the economic reward of providing benefits to domestic partners. Overall, almost 10,000 private-sector companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also provide these benefits.

Surveys show that many private sector employers offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. You can bet each one knows that the policy makes good business sense; it is good management policy, it is good employee policy, and it is good recruitment and retention policy.

In fact, employers have told analysts that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the Government to be able to compete for the most qualified employees, we are going to have to provide the same benefits that job seekers can find elsewhere.

The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their families are,

therefore, not being paid equally. Of course, the supporters of this legislation understand that covering domestic partners will add some increment to the total cost of providing federal employee benefits. And we understand that we have to be particularly careful about government spending right now and perform rigorous cost benefit analyses of all, not just new, federal expenditures.

Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one-half of one percent. The Office of Personnel Management says the cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years would be $670 million. In the name of fairness and raising the appeal of federal employment, this is affordable legislation.

Among the many stories I have heard about the impact of this inequality on real people, I particularly remember the words of Michael Guest, who was ambassador to Romania in the Bush Administration and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute before he left public service. In his resignation letter, Mr. Guest made a moving and eloquent case for extending benefits to same sex partners. I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed for an U.S. ambassadorship from the U.S. When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I quote here from his farewell address to his colleagues ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.''

Those are convincing words from a talented and loyal former public servant--who once described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do.'' It is a great loss to the nation that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service-- particularly at a time when our nation so desperately needs talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face abroad. He may have left public service for many reasons--but one of them should not have been that his federal employee benefits did not allow him to care for the needs of his family in an adequate manner.

The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission MedPAC Reform Act, legislation to elevate MedPAC to an executive branch entity and give it the resources and authority to implement Medicare payment policies. It is a fact that the quality of U.S. health care is mediocre

and its costs are unsustainable. Nonetheless, a modern health care delivery system is within our reach and something that we can start to achieve this year. Payment reforms, particularly in Medicare, are the cornerstone for driving quality improvement and improving the efficiency of our health care system. However, Congress must adopt a mechanism to implement and maintain Medicare reimbursement policies that are based on the best evidence and driven by the right incentives. This is simply not the case today.

Currently, Congress has the sole authority to change the cost curve for Medicare. Unfortunately, this process is riddled with political influence and is slowed by an inadequate structure to research, analyze, test, and implement successful delivery system reforms. Given the role of Medicare in determining market norms among all health care payers, both public and private, the federal government has an opportunity to realign our nation's health care system to drive quality improvement and greater efficiency.

The federal government already has a well-respected, independent entity--the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC--that currently advises Congress on Medicare payment policies. MedPAC, established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), employs a number of mechanisms to inform Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. Specifically, MedPAC analyzes provider reimbursement, beneficiary access to care, and quality of care; delivers this information to Congress through regular reports and recommendations; engages in public meetings to discuss policy issues and formulate its recommendations to the Congress; and seeks input on Medicare issues in non-public forums through frequent meetings with a wide variety of parties.

Despite MedPAC's reputation for providing thoughtful, evidence-based recommendations to improve Medicare's payment policies, MedPAC has no power to implement its recommendations. That power rests solely with Congress. Unfortunately, Members of Congress face unyielding pressure from the health care industry to pick and choose which MedPAC recommendations they consider, despite the evidence. This routinely leads to the passage of laws that put the special interests of industry over the needs of patients.

MedPAC has proven, through its objectivity and its open and deliberative process, that they have the appropriate expertise to change the cost curve for Medicare and strengthen it for the future. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Reform Act of 2009 helps to achieve this goal. Specifically, this legislation would restructure MedPAC as an independent executive branch entity, like the Federal Reserve Board. This would provide MedPAC the appropriate authority to implement its recommendations for Medicare provider reimbursement policies.

In addition to extending the terms and requirements of the Commissioners to be full-time employees of the Commission, this legislation also establishes three new advisory councils to assist them in their decision-making--a Council of Health and Economic Advisors, a Consumer Advisory Council, and a Federal Health Advisory Council with representatives from the health care industry.

Lastly, MedPAC's authority to analyze health services research is also enhanced in this legislation by providing them with additional resources and staff to bolster their current analytical role. Given the limitations of the current Medicare demonstration process, this legislation provides new authority and resources to MedPAC to design and evaluate new payment models through Medicare demonstrations.

I strongly feel that establishing MedPAC as an independent executive branch agency--which can only happen through an act of Congress--is the type of bold step forward that can truly transform our delivery system. Congress has proven itself to be inefficient and inconsistent in making decisions about provider reimbursement under Medicare. If we want serious improvements in our health care delivery system, then Congress should leave the reimbursement rules to the independent health care experts. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of a policy that truly improves Medicare today and in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Disability Workload Liability Resolution Act, legislation that will resolve Medicare's longstanding liability to state Medicaid programs for individuals who were covered by Medicaid when they should have been covered by Medicare.

For the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had their health care paid for by Medicaid; however, their health care was actually the responsibility of Medicare. Therefore, states have been left financially responsible for individuals whose care should have been paid for entirely by the Federal Government. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the Social Security Administration, SSA, acknowledge Medicare's responsibility for these beneficiaries. The Social Security Administration is in the process of correcting the cash insurance payments that were due to disabled individuals. However, CMS has not acted to establish a means of satisfying Medicare's liability.

This is unacceptable. Nearly every state is struggling to balance its budget in the midst of this terrible economic crisis, and it is estimated that the Medicare program owes the states an estimated $4 billion. This figure continues to grow as the SSA corrects additional cases. When it is determined that a state owes the Federal Government money for Medicaid expenses, states have only 60 days to pay this debt. Yet, now that the situation is reversed, the Federal Government has not even established a timeline with which to pay its debt to the States.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Special Disability Workload Liability Resolution Act, would provide $4 billion in Federal funding to settle this debt to the States. It requires the Social Security Administration and CMS to develop an accurate payment methodology to reimburse states within 6 months of the bill's enactment. Resolving this Federal debt would inject critical funds into State and local economies and help maintain state jobs.

This bill is based on language successfully included in the Senate- passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but it was dropped in conference. It is my hope that my colleagues will once again support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker. The legislation that we are introducing today is aptly named The Safe Roads Act of 2009, as it will go a long way toward improving the safety of our Nation's roads by closing loopholes that have allowed commercial truck and bus drivers to use and abuse drugs and continue to drive without receiving required treatment necessary to return to duty. The bill is designed to save lives by preventing unnecessary deaths on our Nation's roads.

Nearly every day Americans can open their newspapers to learn about a death caused by drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Sometimes, these drivers are behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a commercial bus, which due to their size and weight bring a destructive force on any road. On May 8th of this year, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported about a commercial bus driver involved in an accident on Interstate 40 near Forrest City, AR, in 2007 that resulted in four fatalities. The driver was reportedly under the influence of amphetamines, one of the substances tested for under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, testing regulations. The driver of this commercial vehicle has been sentenced to jail and four lives were lost as a result of the accident.

Some other similar accidents involving truck drivers that have occurred in recent years include: in October 2008, Kane County, IL, a truck driver rear-ended a passenger vehicle killing a woman. The truck driver was indicted for reckless homicide and driving under the influence of narcotics.

In January 2008, in Franklin County, AL, a truck driver was arrested for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol after crossing the center line and killing a woman in a head-on accident.

In July 2007, in Little Rock, AR, a truck driver killed a family of five in a crash. The driver admitted smoking crack cocaine a few hours before the crash.

In May 2007, Centre County, PA, a truck driver ran over a car killing a woman. The driver faces charges including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of suspected methamphetamines.

While drug abuse among the at least 3.4 million truck drivers in the industry is estimated by FMCSA to only represent 2 to 5 percent of the entire truck driving workforce, that still represents roughly 68,000 truck drivers that have a drug or alcohol abuse problem. That is a high and unacceptable risk that needs to be addressed in a serious fashion. Our goal is to prevent accidents of this nature, and I would like to briefly explain how we intend to do so.

Our bill will establish within the FMCSA a national drug and alcohol database and clearinghouse listing positive alcohol and drug test results or test refusals by commercial truck and bus drivers. The bill will expand current drug and alcohol testing regulations to require Medical Review Officers, MROs, and other FMCSA-approved agents conducting already-required testing to report positive test results and test refusals to the FMCSA drug and alcohol clearinghouse. Employers seeking new employees would then be required to not only follow the laws already in place for testing prospective employees, but they would also be required to examine the prospective employees' record in the FMCSA clearinghouse to determine if the prospective employee has recently failed or refused to take a drug and alcohol test. If the prospective employee has a positive test result or test refusal in the clearinghouse, an employer would not be allowed to hire the prospective employee unless it can be proven that he or she has not violated

the requirements of the testing program, or that he or she has fully completed a return-to-duty program as required by the testing program.

There are major loopholes that exist today in the current drug and alcohol testing regime. Drivers have a tendency to ``job-hop'' after failing drug and alcohol tests, moving from one company to another without reporting past drug and alcohol test failures. Some States have since closed this loophole by establishing clearinghouses similar to our proposal, but not all States have these laws, and they do not do anything to prevent drivers with past drug and alcohol test failures from moving State-to-State to seek and gain employment. Our legislation would go to considerable lengths in closing both of these well-known and well-reported loopholes. Our bill would also provide extensive privacy protection for individuals whose data is collected at the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse. The bill would provide individuals with the means to challenge records in the clearinghouse and rights of actions against those who misuse information contained in the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the FMCSA have acknowledged these loopholes. Both have published reports describing a national clearinghouse as a feasible, cost-effective measure to address this problem and improve highway safety. In addition, a clearinghouse is something that Congress has examined since implementing drug and alcohol testing requirements in 1995. In 1999, Congress required the FMCSA to evaluate the viability of a national clearinghouse database for positive test results and test refusals, and in 2004 the results of their study supported a need for such a system and revealed the safety benefits that would come from it. As recently as last year, the GAO released a report to Congress titled `Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and Keep Them off the Road' that recommended the establishment of a national database and clearinghouse of drivers who have tested positive or refused to test. There is a clear need to close these well-known loopholes, and I believe our bill goes a long way in that direction.

It is my hope that Congress will support this legislation and move forward quickly to enact this legislation. I believe it is an imperative step to enhance drug and alcohol testing requirements and improve pre-employment background reviews to reduce the number of accidents and needless deaths resulting from drivers that are under the influence of these types of substances.

I want to thank Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker for their hard work, leadership and support on this very important safety issue, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support its swift passage.

President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act.

It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time

the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.