Floor Statements

Mr. President, some of my colleagues may be surprised to learn--like I was--that some agencies are skimming off the top a portion of some of the congressional appropriations and keeping that money in that agency.

My amendment is simple. It says: If it has been determined that a constituency warrants a direct appropriation--one that has gone through the scrutinizing process and is supported by the House, Senate and then signed into law--then that constituency should receive the full amount.

Bureaucrats at the agencies should not be unilaterally determining that some sort of ``surcharge'' should be assessed to these projects. It amounts to a tax on our constituents. And it usurps the authority of Congress by circumventing the legislative process and giving nameless faceless bureaucrats the authority to alter legislation after it is signed into law.

And in the case where our constituents determine that the full amount of the earmark is not needed and turns back some of the funding to the government--this amendment says that instead of going to bureaucrats in the agencies to spend as they wish--it should instead go towards deficit reduction.

I offer this amendment because long before some started discussing concerns about the appropriations process, I identified--with the assistance of the Congressional Research Service--and have made an effort to investigate this practice of skimming from Congressional appropriations. Let's just say our efforts thus far have been less than successful: almost half of the agencies that have been contacted for information have not bothered to respond.

Each year, I invite Nebraskans--including community officials and nonprofit groups--to propose investments that help ensure some of their tax dollars are returned to the state. I am often approached by Nebraskans seeking help with a project that has been identified as a priority by local officials or others in the community. I support these direct investments only after they have been proposed by Nebraskans and been subjected to reviews to ensure they are both necessary and responsible.

In the absence of a full accounting of how the agencies handle this practice, I am working with the information that has thus far been shared with me. I plan to continue my efforts to seek out information on this practice by the agencies. I can assure this body that as the budget process moves forward this year, I will continue in my efforts to crack down on this practice by agencies to skim some off some of these funds.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of National Agriculture Day and to discuss a couple of important agricultural issues. My home State of Nebraska has a proud agricultural heritage. The rural way of life is something we are proud of and we believe it needs to be preserved.

As we begin to analyze the success and failures of the last farm bill, we need to thoroughly review that information in order to make improvements to the next farm bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am looking forward to working on this bill next year. I believe there is a lot of work to be done for the American farmer and our rural communities. I have started to call this next bill the Food and Fuel Security Act of 2007 because I believe its focus should be on securing a safe, healthy food supply as well as investing in the production of biofuels so as to substantially improve our fuel and energy security. I think the focus should be on crafting a bill that is more effective for the majority of farmers and rural communities and with an emphasis on the opportunities presented by biofuels production.

I look forward to listening to the concerns and recommendations of farmers, ranchers and businesses in the coming months as the Senate Agriculture Committee begins consideration of this bill. I also look forward to reviewing the findings and analysis from Secretary Johanns and the USDA as a result of their listening sessions. I will be evaluating all of this and other available information and will look to work with the other members of the committee and the Senate to put forth an effective Food and Fuel Security Act.

One area that will certainly warrant consideration is payment limits on production subsidies and efforts to transition current production subsidies towards a system more focused on ``green payments'' modeled after programs like the Conservation Security Program, CSP, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. We should also look to significantly expand those and similar programs to compensate farmers for the environmental and conservation benefits they provide.

I believe we must also seriously consider improving our rural development efforts in the next bill. There are opportunities to help rural communities by encouraging entrepreneurial investments and helping these communities capitalize on their unique advantages, resources, and qualities.

Our focus on rural development and improving rural communities must also include addressing the problems young farmers face in choosing the farming way of life. As the current generation of farmers approaches retirement, it is imperative that we provide opportunities to those members of the next generation who are interested in

farming. The daunting obstacles for young farmers, from the price of land, equipment and inputs to the low margins from farming, must be addressed in a sound manner so that we can help secure this profession and America's food security for future generations. Doing so is important for the rural communities that would otherwise lose these talented young people and the economic activity associated with farming. But this is also important for the future of our Nation's food security. I often tell people that if they like importing about 60 percent of their fuel now, they are really going to love importing 60 percent of their food in the future. Helping a new generation of young farmers get started in farming and helping them work toward successful careers as farmers is vital to securing a safe, healthy, and affordable food supply. We should make this a priority in the Food and Fuel Security Act.

There is another important component of the next bill that has gained much welcomed attention lately: biofuels. In order to improve our energy and fuel security situation we must make it a priority to invest more into research, market development, and infrastructure development, as well as feedstock development, for biofuels. I have long believed the only way to break the cycle of our dependency on foreign oil is to invest in alternative and renewable fuel technology.

As a Nebraskan, my focus has been on the role agriculture can play in the development of alternative sources of energy. Agriculture is positioned to supply the Nation with an abundant source of clean, high- quality energy that will reduce our destructive reliance on foreign oil.

Biofuels production can be the catalyst for a new wave of American innovation in a continuing search for better energy solutions. The virtue in producing cleaner, more sustainable fuels derived from our own fields rather than extracted from distant lands could help spur new technologies, new jobs, and new growth in our national and rural economies.

We in Nebraska know the value of ethanol. We know the benefits it holds for the environment and our farmers and we know that it is critical in lessening our dependence on foreign oil. We currently have 11 ethanol facilities in Nebraska that have the capability to produce 534 million gallons of ethanol annually. These facilities represent more than $700 million of capital investment and have a net value of production that tops $1 billion annually. Plus, more than six thousand Nebraskans are now employed directly or indirectly in Nebraska ethanol production, and we have more facilities and jobs on the way.

I believe a national emphasis on biofuels production represents an important investment in the proud tradition of the American farmer, American ingenuity, and American productivity. There is not an area of the country that does not have some agricultural product that can be used as an alternative energy source, whether it is corn in Nebraska; forestry wastes in the Northeast and Northwest, sugar cane in Hawaii, Louisiana, and Florida; or the potential of dedicated energy crops like switchgrass that can be grown throughout the country. So in honor of National Agriculture Day today, I want to emphasize the importance of biofuels for agriculture and for our Nation. We must make increased production and usage of biofuels a national priority.

Today we honor those who work so hard to feed not only the people of our Nation but also people around the world. One day is not enough. I am thankful for our farmers and agricultural producers every day, but I am pleased to pay them a special tribute today.

Mr. President, I rise today to state that I will be voting against the motion to invoke cloture on the lobbying reform bill. Typically, I vote for cloture motions because they are usually intended to facilitate an up-or-down vote on a piece of legislation or a nomination that is being stalled. Today, that is not the case. Yesterday, cloture was filed on the lobbying reform bill to prevent an up-or-down vote on an amendment. In this case, it is an amendment on port security, an issue of critical importance to this country right now. As a result, I will vote against cloture today to ensure that up-or-down votes are allowed to occur.

Mr. President, when the last major telecommunications bill was passed in 1996, fewer than half of American households owned a computer, only one out of four owned a cell phone or had Internet access, almost no one had residential broadband Internet access, and Internet commerce was in its infancy. Regulations were based on the assumption that telephone networks only offered voice service, cable television networks only offered video service, and the Internet only offered data service. Today, however, many cable systems offer Internet access and phone service,

telephone networks support Internet access and will soon offer video, and the Internet supports an amazing variety of applications.

I believe reform to our telecommunications laws is needed, and we should make reform a priority. It is time to tear down regulatory barriers between telephone, wireless, video, and the Internet to unleash innovation and encourage private investment.

I applaud the leadership of Senators Stevens and Inouye on the Senate Commerce Committee in scheduling an ambitious slate of hearings to address telecom reform. As the hearings begin, I want to outline some basic principles I would like to see embodied in any reform legislation that moves forward out of committee.

In order to tap the infinite potential technology has to improve the way we communicate, I believe we should do the following:

No. 1, eliminate regulatory barriers that hinder innovation and encourage private investment in new telecommunications facilities and services; No. 2, streamline video franchising requirements to facilitate greater consumer choice of video providers, while allowing municipalities to protect community interests; No. 3, encourage a favorable regulatory environment for robust competition among communications providers, while protecting consumers' access to content and services; No. 4, allow for the development of uniform consumer protection standards, while recognizing the importance of State and local regulators in addressing consumer concerns; and No. 5, use the public spectrum to promote development of new wireless communications services such as broadband Internet.

Any telecom reform must address the needs of every American consumer regardless of where they live. Rural areas like Nebraska cannot be left behind. I believe that technology holds enormous economic promise to rural America, and innovation and competition must be encouraged in even the most remote areas of our country. Therefore I advocate that reform legislation do the following:

No. 1, ensure the stability of the Universal Service Fund in order to preserve affordable telephone service in rural areas, and for all Americans, as well as to continue support for schools, libraries and rural health care providers; No. 2, promote private investment in and deployment of broadband Internet and other advanced telecommunications services, in rural America; and No. 3, encourage increased wireless coverage and introduction of new wireless services to rural America.

In order for the United States to be a leader in the global economy, we must modernize our telecommunications laws to ensure we are fostering investment, innovation, and competition and not impeding progress. We also must ensure that everyone--regardless of where they live--benefits from modernization of our telecom laws.

I believe we must act now to protect our place in the world as a leader in communications, and I look forward to the debate on this very important issue.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to speak on S. Res. 355 regarding the budget for the National Guard, a resolution which Senator Lindsey Graham and I have cosponsored.

Last week, a total of 75 Senators, including myself, signed a letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld opposing the plan that proposes changes to the standing force structure of the National Guard. This plan has raised serious concerns.

Senator Frist, the majority leader, said last week on a national morning news program that he would oppose cuts to the National Guard.

Nebraska National Guard General Roger Lempke, president of the Adjunct Generals Association, has aggressively questioned the proposed changes to the Guard. General Lempke and I share another concern about the Guard; that is, the increasing problem it has with equipment shortages as a result of the war, damage, total destruction, and the fact that much of the equipment is most likely going to be left in Iraq.

Earlier this year, General Lempke briefed me on equipment shortages faced by the Nebraska National Guard. I learned firsthand that the Guard in Nebraska is facing shortages of $35 million in equipment, from trucks to body armor, from humvees to night-vision goggles.

This prompted me, along with my colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, to introduce a resolution on the National Guard that essentially does two things: First, it asks the Pentagon to fully fund the Guard to restore lost and destroyed equipment; second, it seeks consultation with Congress and the Nation's Governors on any potential force structure changes. In a briefing today before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General Schoomaker assured members he has already begun this process of talking to the Nation's Governors and seeking more consultation with affected Members of the Congress.

This resolution was cleared by the Committee on Armed Services and sent to the Senate last week. It has 54 cosponsors, including myself. It is bipartisan. It is direct. I urge my colleagues and the majority leader to ensure that this resolution be passed today. We cannot wait any longer. We must assure the Department of Defense, that Congress has spoken, and that we will be heard on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a resolution I am submitting with Senator Graham and 31 other senators, many of whom are members of the National Guard Caucus like me and Senator Graham. I am also very proud to note that the National Guard Association of the United States has endorsed our resolution.

This resolution honors the service of the National Guard and requests consultation by the Department of Defense with the Congress and our Nation's Governors prior to offering proposals that could change the force structure of the Guard. In my opinion, it could not be timelier or more important.

We all know the tremendous sacrifices the National Guard is making around the globe today. The Army National Guard and the Air National Guard represent 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia and they are currently hard at work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and over 40 other countries around the world.

Long gone is the phrase ``weekend warrior''. The Guard is made up of citizen-soldiers and airmen who serve full-time when their country calls on them. Since September 11, they have responded and represented America's militia with great honor.

Currently, the Nebraska National Guard has 364 personnel in Iraq. Their units are the 1-167th Cavalry which provides combat support to the Marines, the 67 Area Support Group which is responsible for command and control and the 189th Truck Company which handles convoy operations. In Afghanistan, there are 65 National Guard members of the 2nd Battalion at the Regional Training Institute helping to train the Afghan National Army. Their Adjutant General, Major General Roger L. Lempke, leads the Nebraska National Guard with great pride and distinction. He is a credit to the National Guard, Nebraska and the Nation he represents.

The Guard is unique in that it's a shared resource between the Governors and the President. The National Guard is the first to respond to domestic emergencies which range from natural disasters to homeland defense. Ninety percent of the troops on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi responding to Hurricane Katrina were members of the National Guard.

Most Nebraskans will recall the blizzard that roared out of Colorado in October 1997 and slammed into Nebraska causing extensive damage that would take weeks to clean up. It was fall and most trees still had their leaves. Branches snapped under the weight of more than a foot of heavy, wet snow and ice. The resulting power outages left 125,000 Nebraskans without electricity for days and even weeks.

As governor of Nebraska then, it was the responsibility of my office to declare a state of emergency which activated the National Guard to help in clean up and rescue operations. The Guard responded with troops and equipment that made the effort proceed smoothly and efficiently.

The Guard handles State missions like this every year and every season while experiencing critical equipment shortages, especially vehicle and radio shortages. Congress added $1 billion dollars for new equipment for the Guard last December, but that's only a small portion of what is needed to fully fund the equipment needs of the Guard. And deployments, especially to Iraq and Afghanistan, have stretched the Guard thin.

It's in this environment that the Department of Defense will release the Quadrennial Defense Review next month. The QDR review could impact the future of the Guard. The Army and the Air Force may recommend changes in the force structure which will impact Army National Guard armories and Air National Guard wings throughout the country.

Reductions in the force structure combined with a lack of adequate equipment for the National Guard threaten its missions and ability to respond in an emergency. Homeland defense is the most important mission of the Department of Defense and the National Guard is the force best suited to defend the homeland. It's the very last place resources should be cut from.

Unfortunately, media reports indicate that to pay for modernization programs, the Department of Defense will propose changing the Guard's force structure. In an effort to begin a dialogue with DOD we are offering this resolution which honors the National Guard and recommends that DOD: Fully funding the equipment needs of

the National Guard; requests that the Department of Defense should, as soon as possible, consult with Governors, as well as Congress, on any proposed changes to the National Guard force structure; requests that any plan of the Department of Defense regarding the National Guard force structure take into account the role of the National Guard in homeland defense and other state mission defined by Governors; requests the Department of Defense provide budget projections that detail cost savings from any changes in National Guard force structure, as well as projected costs in the event large personnel increases are necessary to respond to a national emergency; and requests the Department of Defense assure Congress, and Governors, that potential force structure changes will not impact the safety and security of the American people.

Every debate about the defense budget should be held in the context of long-term national security goals. I look forward to engaging with the Department on their QDR proposals for the future of America's militia, the National Guard, and I urge adoption of this resolution by the full Senate.

Mr. President, today I want to share with my colleagues that after 4 years of earning their way to the Final Four and into two national championship matches, the University of Nebraska-Omaha Mavericks women's soccer team won their first ever national title in Wichita Falls, TX.

In their season's first overtime match, Brandi Beale scored the game- winning shot to seal the Mavs' victory. The 2005 UNO women's soccer team is the first ever Nebraska soccer team to win a national title. Meghan Pile, a senior who has played in all four final fours said it best with her statement, ``It's the only way to go out.''

The team is ecstatic over their victory, and so am I. On behalf of all Nebraskans and myself, I want to congratulate these women and the coaching staff for their enormous success.

Mr. President, although the Senate's passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 is a good start to ensuring continuity within our financial markets in the event they are impacted by another terrorist attack, I am disappointed the Act failed to include group life insurance.

Over 160 million working Americans have coverage through a group life policy. For many, this coverage is their only form of life insurance. Loss of this benefit would threaten their families' financial stability.

Group life insurance poses unique risks to the carriers that provide it. Much like workers' compensation insurance, the high level of risk concentration by employer and worksite makes group life insurance particularly vulnerable to large-scale losses from events such as terrorist attacks.

Before the September 11 tragedy, group life insurers protected against large-scale losses through the purchase of catastrophe reinsurance. Since that time, group life insurers have experienced a decreased availability of catastrophe reinsurance coverage. At the same time, the cost of this limited coverage and its related deductible have increased to the point where the coverage is cost-prohibitive. Additionally, it is not uncommon for catastrophe reinsurers to exclude terrorism on most quotes.

Opponents of group life's inclusion argue that free market participants should be able to reach a price on any commodity. But this mindset ignores the fact that group life insurers do not operate in a truly free market. Even if group life insurers wanted to exclude coverage for terrorist acts--which many, for good public policy reasons, reject as an option--they currently are prohibited from doing so.

Ordinarily, insurers would control their risk exposure through the premiums they charge. However, in the context of terrorism, this mechanism also is no longer available for group life insurers. The lack of historical data on the incidence rate of terrorism in the United States prevents insurers from pricing for this risk. Moreover, the very nature of terrorism--a non natural event--makes it a risk for which actuaries have no basis to price.

The bill's required analysis of the long-term availability and affordability of insurance for terrorism risk, including group life coverage, simply offers the distant hope of a solution for group life insurers. Daily reminders of the continued threat of terrorism require an immediate solution.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge members of the conference committee to look beyond the buildings the act would protect and protect the people inside those buildings by including group life in the extension.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for this opportunity. I call up my amendment No. 2625, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

In October 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, providing for outsourcing by the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, of collection of unpaid and past due Federal income taxes. The bidding process for the initial contracts is currently underway. Eventually, after full implementation of the program, it is estimated that these contracts will create up to 4,000 well paying private-sector jobs.

The amendment that Senator DeWine and I are offering today would establish a preference under the debt collection contracting program for contractors who meet certain threshold criteria relating to employment of disabled veterans and other severely disabled persons. The amendment further requires that at least a specified percentage of the individuals employed by the contractor to provide debt collection services under the contract with the IRS qualify as disabled veterans or severely disabled persons.

If Federal employees conducted the same tax collection activities, current law would give preferences to disabled veterans in filling those Federal jobs. In addition, if other persons with severe disabilities were employed by the Federal Government in those jobs, those disabled persons would benefit from the Federal Government's long history of nondiscrimination and policies of promoting job opportunities for the disabled.

Despite multiple Federal programs, benefits offered thorough a variety of agencies, and various tax incentives, unemployment rates for persons with disabilities, PWDs, are extremely high. The 2000 Census estimated that there were 31 million working-age Americans with disabilities, with an unemployment rate of 70-80 percent. Today, there are 2.6 million veterans receiving service-connected benefits, including disability benefits with an additional 340,000-plus applications pending by other veterans.

By enacting legislation to allow the IRS to outsource debt collection, Congress certainly did not intend to curtail the national commitment to creating meaningful job opportunities for disabled veterans and other severely disabled persons. Indeed, the contracts which the IRS will soon execute with private-sector debt collection companies provide a unique opportunity for the Federal government to stimulate creation of well-paying jobs for disabled veterans and other persons with severe disabilities.

To realize this opportunity, however, Congress must act to assure that existing Federal employment preferences for disabled veterans and Federal policies promoting opportunities for other severely disabled persons are carried forward as a part of the IRS's contracting criteria. My amendment, that I am happy to be offering with Senator DeWine, achieves this goal.

Our amendment would establish a preference for companies that currently employ a minimum of 50 disabled veterans or persons with severe disabilities, who also must be capable of fulfilling the task. Once the IRS award is made, the debt collection contractor would be required to ensure that 35 percent of the workforce fulfilling the contract be new hires that are persons or veterans with disabilities.

Under this amendment, a minimum of 140 full-time equivalent jobs, also known as FTE jobs, would be created for PWDs at third-party debt collection agencies contracted to collect certain past dues income taxes. An FTE job is equivalent to one (1) 40-hour job or two (2) 20-hr weekly employees or four (4) 10-hour per week employees. These jobs are often part-time; 140 FTEs could translate into close to 300 part-time positions for disabled individuals.

This amendment would not only help to alleviate the current unemployment rate of PWDs, it would also generate substantial savings. These jobs pay anywhere from $19,000 annually up to $40,000 annually and can include health and 401(k) benefits. Even at the low end, this income level is too high to qualify for supplemental security income- disability insurance benefits. Thus, individuals in these programs who take these jobs will no longer require government benefit subsidies from SSI or DI, even if otherwise qualified. Over a 5-year period, the SSI/DI savings are estimated to be $69-$75 million.

To qualify under this amendment, a company must hire 50 PWDs. If 10 companies do this, the net result is employment of 500 PWDs who currently do not have jobs. If 20 companies participate, 1,000 PWDs would be gainfully employed. The savings realized with 1,000 PWDs no longer needing SSI/DI benefits could be as high as $344 million.

The IRS debt collection program is already established. The provisions in this amendment offer the added benefit of more jobs for disabled veterans and the reduction of Federal benefit program costs.

We owe it to our service men and women to improve their futures in any way we can. We have the opportunity to not only show our support for our disabled veterans, but to also show the severely disabled that we believe in them and in their abilities.

I urge my fellow Senators to support this amendment, to support our veterans, and to support the severely disabled.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2625.

Mr. President, it has already been offered and is ready.

Mr. President, the Treasury Department has the capacity by law to outsource contracts to collect unpaid tax debts. As it currently stands, as they contract with employers, many of the benefits that have existed in the past for the hiring of disabled workers, disabled veterans, would not carry forth in these contract situations as they do for employment in the Federal Government.

This amendment will enable the Treasury Department, in awarding contracts, to give a preference to those companies that hire and engage disabled workers and disabled veterans. There is no tax money involved in this. There is no tax credit. They just have a preference if they hire disabled workers. These disabled workers will come off the Social Security SSI benefits and the disability DI benefits. They will become taxpaying citizens.

I think this is a great amendment. I hope my colleagues will accept it.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act, S. 1010. Some

of its provisions were included in an amendment included in the reconciliation package. This legislation will increase the likelihood that Medicare beneficiaries will receive a colonoscopy screening examination which is proven to be the most effective way to detect and treat colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is the No. 2 cancer killer in the United States today. This year, according to the American Cancer Society, approximately 145,000 new cases will be diagnosed and 56,000 Americans will die from colon cancer. We have the power to change these sobering statistics by increasing access to this lifesaving procedure. Although Congress passed a colonoscopy screening benefit for Medicare beneficiaries back in 1997, the percentage of seniors receiving a colonoscopy reportedly has increased by only an estimated 1 percent. A recent UCLA study, as discussed in an October 11 Wall Street Journal article, documents the continuing underutilization of screening colonoscopies. It points out that colorectal cancer screening rates still lag far behind those for cervical, breast and prostate cancer. As the Wall Street Journal article concludes, ``The results were particularly disturbing because `we could eliminate this disease if America had the will,''' as the study's lead author noted.

One reason for the underutilization of colonoscopy screening in the Medicare population is rapidly declining rates of reimbursement for the procedure. Medicare reimbursement for colonoscopies performed in the outpatient setting has dropped by nearly one-third from the initial 1998 reimbursement rates. In the majority of States today, Medicaid payment rates actually exceed Medicare reimbursement for colonoscopy. This fact alone underscores the Medicare reimbursement problem is real. This legislation increases Medicare reimbursement for colorectal cancer-related procedures to assure more equitable reimbursement for physicians who absorb significant costs in providing these valuable services.

Another reason for this underutilization is that Medicare currently does not pay for a physician office visit prior to a screening colonoscopy, although it does pay for a physician office visit prior to a diagnostic colonoscopy. The procedures are identical--both involve the same amount of risk, so there is simply no reason why Medicare would pay for an office visit prior to one procedure and not the other. Because Medicare does not pay for this necessary office visit, many physicians must provide them for free. This amendment would fix this discrepancy by providing Medicare coverage for a preoperative visit or consultation prior to a screening colonoscopy, as it does for a diagnostic colonoscopy.

Every year, thousands of Americans needlessly die from colorectal cancer. We have the means to change this and we should do so. I appreciate our Senate colleagues joining in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Army SPC Darren Howe of Beatrice, NE.

Specialist Howe, 21, began his service in the Army Reserve. He graduated in 2003 from Beatrice High School and decided to join the Army full-time. Specialist Howe was assigned to A Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning,

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a person who has been instrumental in making Lincoln, NE, one of the great capital cities in America.

Helen Boosalis served on the city council before unseating an incumbent to be elected mayor of Lincoln, NE, earning her the distinction of being the first woman in America elected to the position of mayor in a city with a population of more than 100,000 residents.

As mayor of Lincoln from 1975 to 1983, Helen Boosalis was a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors where she became one of the first women to become president of that organization.

Three years after leaving the mayor's office, Helen Boosalis won the Democratic nomination to run for Governor of Nebraska in a race where I had the honor of being her campaign chairman. She faced Kay Orr, who was Nebraska State treasurer at the time in what was the first woman- versus-woman gubernatorial campaign in American history.

She didn't win but she didn't give up her desire for public service and helping people who are in need.

Helen Boosalis went on to serve as president and chairman of the board of directors of the American Association of Retired Persons and, as such, had the opportunity to testify before Congress as she championed the causes of the Nation's senior citizens.

Since leaving that position, Helen Boosalis has tirelessly devoted herself to volunteering her services to help one worthwhile cause after another.

Her generosity even earned her a quote in the 2004 ``Giving is Caring'' inspirational calendar which included quotes from such notables as Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Eleanor Roosevelt, Confucius, and Aristotle. Her quote goes to the spirit of voluntarism. It read, ``America has had a long and rich tradition of generosity that began with simple acts of neighbor helping neighbor.''

As an octogenarian, Helen Boosalis continues to serve her fellow Nebraskans with so much abundant energy that once caused one of her colleagues to describe her as a ``Whirlwind.''

Her honors are far too numerous to mention from the prestigious Midlander of the Year to Nebraska Woman of Distinction, but the honor she will receive this Sunday in the city she loves may be the best yet even though on the surface it appears to be quite humble.

Lincoln, NE, is a pedestrian friendly city with a beautiful and extensive network of hiking and biking trails that can trace their roots to Helen Boosalis' leadership as mayor.

On Sunday, November 13, 2005, the section of trail along Nebraska Highway Two where the entire system began in the mid 1970s thanks to Helen Boosalis' vision as mayor will be named in her honor.

A tree will also be planted as living testimony for decades of Nebraskans to come that they owe the tremendous system of trails that those in Lincoln continue to enjoy to the leadership of Mayor Helen Boosalis.

In closing, I would like to quote from the invitation for this Sunday's event:

It was once said that Helen Boosalis has governed this city

with graciousness, with tenacity, with determination, with

understanding, with ability, with hope, with vision, with

fairness, and with many other valued attributes. Now it's

time to honor her with the naming of Helen Boosalis

Trail.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend, Chairman Mike Enzi, in introducing the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. This legislation will help bring much-needed relief to small businesses who are struggling to afford health insurance coverage for their employees.

The affordability of health insurance coverage is a major problem facing America's businesses and consumers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, health insurance premiums for businesses rose 9.2 percent last year. While health care cost increases have subsided somewhat, premium increases for last year alone were more than 3 times the growth in workers' wages and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation.

This legislation helps address the problem of rising health care costs. By providing small businesses with more ability to pool and by harmonizing and streamlining insurance regulations, this bill will help reduce the cost of coverage for small businesses. By lowering costs, this bill holds promise in reducing the number of working Americans who lack health insurance coverage. Our legislation will help reduce costs in a balanced and carefully targeted manner while avoiding some of the problems that other proposals have raised.

In contrast to other proposals, such as Association Health Plans (AHP), our bill retains State-based regulation and oversight. State- based oversight and enforcement is critical to protecting consumers. Unlike other AHP bills, associations cannot self insure and be outside of State oversight. As a former insurance director, this issue is critical for my support.

Moreover, the bill maintains a level playing field in the health insurance marketplace by avoiding harmful provisions that would have led to rampant ``cherry-picking'' and adverse selection problems. The bill does not allow association health plans to abide by less comprehensive rules and under minimal oversight by the U.S. Department of Labor--which would allow these plans to attract only young and healthy groups while increasing costs for the vast majority of small businesses and their workers.

I applaud the effort of Senator Enzi and his talented staff and am pleased to introduce the bill. However, I also recognize that is not a perfect solution; nor is it a panacea for all the problems facing our health care system.

I look forward to working with Senator Enzi to assure that the bill preserves comprehensive and high-quality benefits while, at the same time, allowing small businesses to have access to affordable coverage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend, Chairman Mike Enzi, in introducing the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. This legislation will help bring much-needed relief to small businesses who are struggling to afford health insurance coverage for their employees.

The affordability of health insurance coverage is a major problem facing America's businesses and consumers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, health insurance premiums for businesses rose 9.2 percent last year. While health care cost increases have subsided somewhat, premium increases for last year alone were more than 3 times the growth in workers' wages and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation.

This legislation helps address the problem of rising health care costs. By providing small businesses with more ability to pool and by harmonizing and streamlining insurance regulations, this bill will help reduce the cost of coverage for small businesses. By lowering costs, this bill holds promise in reducing the number of working Americans who lack health insurance coverage. Our legislation will help reduce costs in a balanced and carefully targeted manner while avoiding some of the problems that other proposals have raised.

In contrast to other proposals, such as Association Health Plans (AHP), our bill retains State-based regulation and oversight. State- based oversight and enforcement is critical to protecting consumers. Unlike other AHP bills, associations cannot self insure and be outside of State oversight. As a former insurance director, this issue is critical for my support.

Moreover, the bill maintains a level playing field in the health insurance marketplace by avoiding harmful provisions that would have led to rampant ``cherry-picking'' and adverse selection problems. The bill does not allow association health plans to abide by less comprehensive rules and under minimal oversight by the U.S. Department of Labor--which would allow these plans to attract only young and healthy groups while increasing costs for the vast majority of small businesses and their workers.

I applaud the effort of Senator Enzi and his talented staff and am pleased to introduce the bill. However, I also recognize that is not a perfect solution; nor is it a panacea for all the problems facing our health care system.

I look forward to working with Senator Enzi to assure that the bill preserves comprehensive and high-quality benefits while, at the same time, allowing small businesses to have access to affordable coverage.

Mr. President, due to skyrocketing home energy prices, millions of low-income households are facing an imminent heating emergency this winter. The Department of Energy projects the average family to incur heating costs of $1,099 or more this winter; an increase of 30-48 percent over last year's heating bills.

This is a concern, as volatile and record-high energy costs will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of missed mortgage payments and foreclosures.

LIHEAP is a very positive, effective partnership between the Federal Government, State governments and the private sector.

Leveraging private dollars to supplement Federal dollars, LIHEAP has proven that successful relationships can exist between the government, businesses, gas and electric utilities and community-based social service organizations.

While States, local governments and the private sector have demonstrated their capacity to develop programs to address some energy assistance needs, collectively these programs cannot meet the demand for LIHEAP assistance. The need for energy assistance continues. However, we must ensure that we are addressing this assistance in a fiscally responsible way.

That is why, along with Senator Carper, I have filed an amendment to provide an offset for funding for LIHEAP.

Specifically, my amendment increases the amount in the LIHEAP program by $1.6 billion.

Because of the severe budget deficits this country is facing today, I feel like wherever practical, we need to consider offsets.

That is why my amendment offsets this increase by using 3 changes in tax policy that have passed the Senate on numerous occasions--most recently as part of the Highway bill this past May. Unfortunately, these offsets were stripped in conference, which is why they are once again available for our use here to pay for additional funding for