Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that this bill has passed with such a substantial vote.

This bill now goes to the President. I hope the President will be persuaded by the strong bipartisan support this bill has and will sign the bill.

As it customary, I want to thank the staff who have worked so hard to produce this bill.

From the House: Bridgett Taylor, Amy Hall and Andy Schneider.

From Senator Baucus's staff: Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Michelle Easton, and Alice Weiss, and avid Schwartz.

I would like to thank my staff: Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Mark Hayes, Becky Shipp, Rodney Whitlock, Steve Robinson, Shaun Freiman, and Sean McGuire.

Thanks as well to Senator Hatch's staff, Pattie DeLoatche, and thanks to Senator Rockefeller's staff: Jocelyn Moore and Ellen Doneski.

Finally, I want to extend deep appreciation to the congressional support agencies on which Members and our staff rely.

From the Office of Legislative Counsel, thanks to Ed Grossman, Jessica Shapiro, and Ruth Ernst.

From the Congressional Research Service, thanks to Richard Rimkunas, Chris Peterson, Elicia Herz, April Grady, and Evelyne Baumrucker.

From the Congressional Budget Office, thanks to Director Peter Orszag, Tom Bradley, Eric Rollins, and Jeanne De Sa.

Again, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

I thank my colleagues for introducing this amendment. This program provides vital funding for many hospitals including those in Iowa, and I was very disappointed that the House blocked our attempt to extend this program. It is unfortunate. Extending this program, however, does not address fundamental problems related to the wage index system. As mandated under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, released their report examining an alternative Medicare wage index methodology. The legislation also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to propose revisions to the wage index in the fiscal year 2009 Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system proposed rule. I look forward to considering this proposal as we continue our work to make Medicare hospital payments more equitable.

I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and other Finance Committee members to address this issue.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, are we in morning business?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for what time I might consume.

Mr. President, soon the Senate will be debating the Children's Health Insurance Program. I might refer to that from time to time as CHIP, C-H-I-P, Children's Health Insurance Program.

This program is sunsetting in a week. The program was started 10 years ago, a product of a Republican-led Congress. It is a targeted program. It is a program designed to provide affordable health coverage for low-income children of working families. Those are families, working families, who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but struggle to afford private insurance and may not even have it.

Last July, because this program has to be reauthorized right now, the Senate Finance Committee reported bipartisan legislation to enhance and improve CHIP by a strong vote of 17 to 4.

In August, the Senate passed the Finance bill with the same bipartisan support by a vote of 68 to 31. On Tuesday, 265 Members of the House of Representatives voted for the bill that now will be before the Senate. That bill is a product of informal conferencing between the House and Senate. Clearly, we have a bill with strong bipartisan support. I want to emphasize that because this is the way the Senate Finance Committee has operated over a long period of time, both with Republicans in control and Democrats in control. Senator Baucus worked very closely with me when we were in the majority. Senator Baucus has continued that working relationship now that Democrats control the Congress and he is chairman of the committee. I welcome and appreciate that bipartisan leadership. It is obviously represented in this product that will soon be before the Senate.

This legislation maintains the fundamental provisions of the Senate. I want to emphasize that it maintains the fundamental provisions of the Senate bill not to denigrate the work of the House of Representatives but as a reflection of the fact that we had to work out something that would not be filibustered in the Senate. In the House of Representatives they don't have such provisions for filibuster. The House had some deference to the Senate. I appreciate that. But I also appreciate the fact that a lot of my colleagues--and these are Republican colleagues to whom I refer, not Democratic colleagues--said so often during the months of consideration of this bill before we finally passed it the first time that this $35 billion didn't mean much that we passed in the Senate because the House of Representatives passed a $50 billion CHIP bill and it would come back much bigger. I tried to say to my colleagues at that particular time that there would have to be a realization that if we were going to avoid a filibuster in the Senate, we would have to have something closer to the Senate provisions than the House. So I emphasize that this is pretty much the legislation the Senate originally passed, albeit right now it is a compromise between the House and Senate. There was a cap on new spending of $35 billion. There are no Medicare provisions in this bill as there were in the Senate bill. Spending is paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax. I commend the majority in the House and Senate for cooperating with Senate Republicans and for working with us on our priorities during the negotiations that led to this agreement. This compromise agreement is consistent with the principles we put forth in the Senate bill.

Of course I will.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senate majority leader leaves, I thank him for those very kind remarks. I also want to recognize him. Without his being an honest broker as an intermediary between the House and the Senate, particularly among Democrats, I don't think we would be here either. I appreciate that very much. As a person who has worked hard on this for 4 months, it wouldn't have happened without the Senate majority leader as well. I thank him very much.

Getting back to the bill, I want to explain that this is fundamentally the Senate bill. We had a cap on new spending at $35 billion. That is where the Senate was. The Senate didn't have any Medicare provisions in their bill. The House did. We didn't have any in our bill, the House had Medicare provisions in theirs. Those are dropped out. There is a lot of Medicare provisions that we must act on, but Senator Baucus and I want to do that as separate pieces of legislation. We will do that, and we have committed to the House to do that.

Spending is paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax. That is similar in both the House and Senate. I do want to commend the majority in the House and Senate for cooperating with Senate Republicans and for working with our priorities during the negotiations that led to this agreement. This compromise agreement is consistent with principles that we put forth in the Senate bill. I made clear during the debate on the bipartisan Senate bill before we originally passed it that the Senate went as far as I was willing to go in terms of spending and politics. It makes sense that we stayed true to the Senate bill. The Senate, after all, had a veto-proof majority. So it made sense to stay as close as possible to that successful formula, if the President would go through with his statement of veto and actually veto it.

The legislation before this body maintains all of the key policy provisions of the Senate-passed bill. This bipartisan bill refocuses the program on low-income children. It phases adults off the program. It prohibits a new waiver for parent coverage. It reduces the Federal match rate for States that cover parents. It includes new improvements to reduce the substitution of public coverage for private coverage. This compromise bill maintains the focus on low-income uninsured children and adds coverage for more than 3 million low-income children.

The compromise bill discourages States from covering higher income kids by reducing the Federal matching rate for States that wish to expand eligibility over 300 percent of Federal poverty limits. It rewards States that cover more low-income kids by providing targeted incentives to States that increase enrollment for coverage of low- income kids. So there is a very clear message to the States, all 50 States: Cover your poorest kids, meaning your kids from low-income families, first. Don't spend money on childless adults, as we heard so often during the debate. The word CHIP has no A in it. It is for children, not adults. Don't spend money on parents unless you can prove you are covering low-income kids. Don't spend money on higher income kids unless you can prove that your State is covering your lower income kids first. It is all there in black and white. Everybody can read it.

I get a sense, talking to some of my colleagues, that they haven't read what we are going to be voting on. Anyone who suggests this bill is an expansion to higher income kids or other populations, as has been done under some waivers given by the Bush administration, is simply not reading the bill.

Since the Senate passed a bill the first time, the subject of crowdout has become a lot more important in the debate. I want to define the word ``crowdout.'' That is the substitution of public coverage for people who were previously in private insurance, individual or corporate, health care policies. Crowdout occurs in CHIP because the CHIP benefit is attractive and there is no penalty for refusing private coverage if you are eligible for public coverage.

On August 17, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services put out a letter giving States new instructions on how to address the crowdout, trying to stop going from private coverage to the CHIP program. I appreciate the administration's willingness to engage this issue. They have some very good ideas. But I also think there are some flaws in that policy stated on August 17 by the Secretary of HHS. States are supposed to cover 95 percent of the lowest income kids under that policy statement. But it has been a month since they have issued the policy statement, and CMS still cannot explain what data States should be using to make that determination about 95 percent. Personally, I believe CMS should have answers before they issue policies. If they still can't explain how it works a month later, I believe, as the saying goes, they obviously aren't ready for prime time. So the compromise bill that is before the Senate and passed the House last night replaces the CMS letter with a more thoughtful, reasonable approach.

The Government Accountability Office and the Institute of Medicine would produce analyses on the most accurate and reliable way to measure the rate of public and private insurance coverage and on best practices by States that they would take to address crowdout problems because we don't want to create a public program that moves people from one private coverage to the other. That has happened to some extent over the last few years. We don't want to go further. This deals with that problem. We want to talk about people who don't have any health coverage rather than moving people from private to public.

Following the two reports that are referred to by the Institute of Medicine, as well as the Government Accountability Office, the Secretary, in consultation with the States, under this bill will develop crowdout best practices recommendations for the States to consider and develop a uniform set of data points for States to track and report on coverage of children below 200 percent of Federal poverty guidelines and on crowdout.

Next, States that extend CHIP coverage to children above 300 percent FPL must submit to the Secretary a State plan amendment describing how they will address crowdout for this population, encouraging the best practices recommended by the Secretary to limit moving people from private coverage to public. After October 1, 2010, Federal matching payments will not be permitted to States that cover children whose families' income exceeds 300 percent of poverty, if the State does not meet a target for the percentage of children at or below 200 percent of poverty enrolled in CHIP because we want the emphasis upon low-income children being covered. And at the lower income level, less have to have insurance in the private sector as opposed to higher income people maybe having to have that. So, simply put, cover lower income kids first or the State does not get money to cover higher income kids.

Now, I know some people are obsessed with the State of New York in their efforts to cover kids up to 400 percent of poverty. It seems to come up in the talking points of every person who is against the legislation now before the Senate. This bill does not change the CHIP eligibility rules in any way--not one bit. This bill does not expand the CHIP program to cover middle-income families or higher income kids. It does not do it. The bill actually goes in the other direction. The real fact is the bill makes it very difficult for any State to go above 300 percent of poverty. It will make it very difficult for New Jersey, the only State currently covering kids above 300 percent of poverty, to continue to do so if they do not do a better job of covering low-income kids.

If you are concerned about the State of New York, well, do not waste your time looking at this bill. You will not find answers to New York's fate here in this legislation. The answer is where it has always been-- in the office of the Secretary of HHS, Mike Leavitt. Only he has the authority to allow any State to cover children up to 400 percent of poverty. The authority to approve what States do with the CHIP program rests with him and no one else. This bill does nothing to change that authority. That is a fact. I heartily encourage those of you who have not read the bill and are talking along this line to read the bill. You will find out that what I have just said is a fact. It is all there in black and white.

I also want to say a few words about the President's position on this bill and speak directly to the President, as I spoke to him on the phone at 10 minutes to 9 last Thursday about why he should not veto this bill.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate that you are not--or at least there are words out that you are not--going to support this bill, that you might veto it. I would hope, Mr. President, that you would reconsider. I would hope that you would sign this bill. President Bush, you yourself made a commitment to covering more children. I could quote several times you have said this. But I will go back to something I heard you say personally. It was during the Republican National Convention in New York City. Mr. President, you were very firm on this point. Here is what you said. I want to quote what you said:

America's children must also have a healthy start in life.

In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll

millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up

for the government's health insurance programs. We will not

allow a lack of attention or information to stand between

these children and the health care they need.

So, Mr. President, that is what you said back at the Republican Convention. You were reelected. You have a lot of mandates you are trying to carry out. This Republican Senator is trying to help you carry out that mandate you were elected on based on that speech you made.

I think that you, Mr. President, were pretty clear in your convictions then. I would like to repeat your words because I think they are very important. President Bush, you said that you would ``lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children . . . [in] the government's health insurance programs.'' That is the end of your quote. I am happy to make sure we fulfill that commitment you made, President Bush, but I believe your current budget, where you suggested $5 billion more, does not do the job. I happen to agree with your policy. I think this bill carries out your policy. But I do not think, President Bush, this bill can do that. You obviously cannot do that for the $5 billion more you have in your bill.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that your budget proposal, President Bush, for SCHIP for fiscal year 2008 would result in a loss of coverage--not an increase of coverage that you say you want--a loss of coverage of 1.4 million children and pregnant women. Increasing the numbers of uninsured children is clearly not the goal you expressed or what we want to accomplish in our legislation. So we carry out the policies of covering the kids you want to cover with the amount of money that will do it. That is what we have done in this legislation before us.

Now, this bill does not warrant the overheated rhetoric we heard in the House last night.

I want to say to the President--before I get on to the point about what was said in the House last night--also, the President has another policy he wanted to work into this SCHIP reauthorization. He wanted to use the private sector and use the tax deductibility of individual policies to cover some--and even a great amount--of uninsured people. He thought the SCHIP bill would be a vehicle to do that. I agree with the President's policy on doing that.

There was a period of time--during February, March, and April--that we were negotiating with the White House when I said I thought very much what Senator Wyden of Oregon was trying to do--and the Senator is on the floor--was worthy of doing. I asked the White House would they try to find some help for me and Senator Wyden, that maybe we could do this. They did not find any support for that. They still say they want to do that, but sometime along April or May, we had to make a decision here. Were we going to do what the President wanted to do on SCHIP? So we could not do what the White House wanted to do through the private sector as part of SCHIP, so in order to negotiate a bipartisan agreement, we had to forget that aspect. But I promised the White House all the time that I was going to be working for those goals of covering the uninsured through tax deductibility of individual policies, as Senator Wyden has suggested, and get universal coverage, even, if we can. I am still committed to that.

I spoke to the President of the United States about that last Thursday when I was on the phone with him. I said: Let's get this SCHIP behind us. And I am going to join Senator Wyden in his effort to do it so we can get bipartisanship started on that issue, as well as what we have on SCHIP.

So I am asking President Bush: Won't you please consider signing this bill, and then let Senator Wyden and me work with you on trying to take care of the 47 million people who do not have health insurance--do it through the private sector, do it through the tax deductibility of policies like that.

We even had Senator Clinton, in her statement in Iowa, in her campaign for the Presidency, speak along the same efforts of using tax deductibility of private insurance to take care of medical problems generally but mostly the problems of the uninsured.

So I think we can move in ways of accomplishing what the President wants to accomplish, but it just could not be done on the SCHIP. So you have to do what you have to do around here. If it takes two steps to get the job done, you do it. So I want everybody to know I am not abandoning any efforts to take care of the uninsured. I am going to work with Senator Wyden on that.

Now, if I could go to the debate, the overheated rhetoric we had last night in the House. This is a bill which improves coverage for kids who are poor. This bill does not make it easier for illegal immigrants to get benefits. I do not know how that comes up, but that red herring has been going on over the last 24 hours, and somehow people believe anything they are told. Here is a case of reading the bill again. The bill clearly states that funds cannot go to illegal immigrants.

The desperate efforts I heard on the House side to suggest this bill makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get benefits simply strains credibility. The bill does not extend eligibility for illegal immigrant children or pregnant women. I heard that.

The bill does not make CHIP an entitlement. Now, we all know what the definition of ``entitlement'' is. That was thrown out in the debate in the Senate 2 months ago when we had this bill up. An entitlement is something that, if you qualify for it, you get it, and the money comes from the Federal Treasury, and there is no limit on the amount of money. That is an entitlement. This is a specific amount of money which is going to be spent on this program. Not one dollar more can be spent. This is not an entitlement. Even as recently as a meeting I was in within the last 4 hours, among a mass of my colleagues, that argument was used. I do not know how intellectually dishonest you can be. You are a Member of the U.S. Senate. You know what the language of Government is. Maybe the people at the grassroots do not think of entitlements the way we do. They do not think of programs, appropriated accounts the way we do. But everybody who has been around this Senate a few months knows what those things are. And to call this program an entitlement is intellectually dishonest.

This bill is not a Government takeover of health care, either. And you heard that. This bill is not socialized medicine. Screaming ``socialized medicine'' during a health care debate is like shouting ``fire'' in a crowded theater. It is intended to cause hysteria that diverts people from reading the bill, looking at the facts.

To those of you, my colleagues, who make such outlandish accusations, I say: Go shout ``fire'' somewhere else. Serious people are trying to get real work done. Now is the time to get this work done.

I appreciate very much the leadership Chairman Baucus has provided. I thank him and Senator Rockefeller for what they did to reach a bipartisan agreement because they gave as much as Senator Hatch and I gave as we were negotiating--the four of us--for this bipartisan agreement.

I also extend a sincere thanks to Senator Hatch, who is on the floor with me, for being a part of this effort. Senator Hatch was the main Republican sponsor of this bill 10 years ago, creating the State Children's Health Insurance Program. His commitment to the ideals and fundamentals of the program is steadfast, and the program is better for it.

When we began the debate on CHIP, I wrote down some principles I want to refer to--principles I gave my staff that I believed in that I thought were accomplishable goals in this reauthorization. I probably wrote these down--well, anyway, I will refer to them. But I wrote these principles down in my own handwriting and handed them to my staff and said this is how I think we ought to proceed with the negotiations on the CHIP bill. I am not going to go through and read it line by line, but this is what I wrote down sometime back in February, and I am going to refer to some of these without holding this paper up again.

Here are some highlights of these principles I wrote down entitled ``Principles on SCHIP and How They Compare to The Bill.''

It cannot be a middle-class entitlement, I said. This bill is not an entitlement. It must be paid for. This bill is paid for.

Another principle I wrote down is that it must be focused on families below 200 percent of Federal poverty level. This bill is focused on those low-income families.

Another principle: Kids should be covered before adults. This bill clearly makes that a requirement.

Another thing I said is the program should be capped--not an open- ended entitlement to States. The program continues to be capped in this bill.

I am here to say that my principles remain intact in this compromise document; therefore, I support the compromise bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great admiration that today I recognize some of the most intelligent, driven young minds in this country. I would like to acknowledge the 17 recipients of the 2007 Davidson Fellows Award, a scholarship awarded to exceptional students to assist them in furthering their education. These scholarships are given by the Davidson Institute for Talent Development to inspiring individuals under the age of 18 who have completed academically rigorous projects that demonstrate a potential to make a significant, positive contribution to society. This year's recipients achieved academic excellence in the areas of science, literature, mathematics, technology, and music. As I read through the accomplishments these young minds have achieved, I can assure you that this year's recipients are more than deserving of such an honor. I would like to take a few moments to describe what each recipient has accomplished.

Richard Alt II, a 17-year-old from Fredericksburg, VA, has compared three weather forecasting methods to formulate a brandnew forecasting method. He has done this through detailed interpretation and analysis of varying aspects of climatology. Through his findings, Richard has created a universal process that allows meteorologists to compile more accurate forecast data and help public officials prepare seasonal response plans for various weather patterns.

Another 17-year-old from Vienna, VA, Christina Beasley has explored human perception and beauty in her portfolio, ``An Experiment in Free Speech.'' This young lady has compared emotion in famous literary works to her own pieces of writing to reveal the tucked away beauty of common occurrences. She has realized through careful research and interpretation that a person must make the connection between emotion and rationality to fully understand the intricacies of the human mind.

Sixteen-year-old Nate Bottman of Seattle, WA has found an array of solutions to the Nonlinear Schrodinger Equation, NLS, that shows the pattern of waves in fluids and plasmas that have sharp boundaries and dissipation. Nate has developed a method of finding

solutions to integrable equations and has discovered that stationary solutions of the NLS are spectrally stable. His work will help in many areas of math and science, including but not limited to the study of Bose-Einstein condensates and plasma physics.

A young woman from Davis, CA, Alexandra Courtis, has developed an innovative method used in areas such as cancer research to track different biological functions via luminescent silicon nanorods and quantum dots. At just 17, she has developed a less expensive method of using sodium silicide and ammonium bromide that has made it possible to produce silicon nanoparticles on a larger scale. Alexandra's accomplishment is a significant advancement in targeting cancerous tumors and individual cells.

Billy Dorminy, a 15-year-old from McDonough, GA, has invented a secure method of message encryption using reduced redundancy representations of improper fractional bases. This new method of encryption takes up far less computer memory while also utilizing confusion and diffusion to keep a message hidden. Billy's method allows for the placement of a second undetectable encrypted message in the body of the first, opening the door for further advancement in the area of message encryption.

Another 15-year-old, Yale Fan, from Beaverton, OR, has furthered the binary quantum computational Deutsch-Jozsa and Grover algorithms to create multivalued logic problems. These two algorithms were among the first in the creation of a quantum computer. His work is relevant in many areas including the vision systems in computers, various economic issues, and aspects related to space, including transportation, scheduling, and manufacturing.

Madhavi Gavini, a 17-year-old from Starkville, MS, has developed an innovative method to restrict the augmentation of biofilm-forming pathogens. For example, Pseudomonas, a pathogen that is resistant to many drugs, produces a biofilm that protects it from antibiotics. This young woman's progress was done through the combination of traditional Indian medicine and molecular biology that will be used to treat millions dealing with Pseudomonas infections.

A 17-year-old from Bridgewater, NJ, Michael Harwick wrote a piece entitled ``Highways: The Road as Existence'' that utilized prose, poetry, and dialogue to depict relationships that oscillate between isolation and connection. Michael consistently astounds the reader with a unique voice filled with streams of symbolic and linguistic meaning. Through his choice of short dialog and extravagant descriptions of a visual world, he has shown the lack of dialog in a world filled with noise.

Todd Kramer, a 17-year-old from Port Jefferson, NY, produced a portfolio that followed his growth as a composer since he was 12 entitled ``Finding My Voice Through Music.'' He believes that each generation needs its musicians, composers, and performers that create artistic conventions that grow and mature with the times. This young man just graduated from the Juilliard Pre-College Division and is a student at the Perlman Music Program. He has performed in such prestigious places as Carnegie Hall in New York and the Kennedy Center right here in Washington, DC.

Fifteen-year-old Shannon Lee of Plano, TX, is another very talented musician who believes that music is a cornerstone of communication, which she has shown through her violin portfolio, ``Creating a Musical Bond.'' Shannon specifically enjoys keeping tradition alive by playing a variety of distinguished composers to captivate her audiences. She earned the silver medal at the Stulberg International String Competition, and she received a scholarship from the Texas Commission on the Arts, where she also performed as a soloist in the Dallas Symphony.

Danielle Lent, a 17-year-old from Cedarhurst, NY, has developed an innovative, cost-effective, and earth-friendly method of recycling plastics. Her process involves the exposure of plastic polymers to supercritical carbon dioxide, creating a plastic that has equal or superior properties in comparison to the original. Miss Lent's discovery has allowed for this entire process to occur without releasing harmful toxins while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

A seventeen-year-old young woman from Wesley Chapel, FL, Celeste Lipkes, has transfixed her readers by exploring themes of disease, discovery, and faith in, ``Room to Pace.'' Her portfolio includes the juxtaposition of poetry that is amusing, intense, uplifting, and downright enjoyable with personal essays on physical loss and the oddities of the human family, and finally critical essays analyzing other poetry. Through her work, Celeste wants to inspire her audience to take notice of the details of life.

Yuqing Meng, a 16-year-old from Madison, NJ, feels privileged to contribute to the art of classical music, which he has shown through his piano portfolio, ``Reviving Classical Music Through Individualism.'' When he was just 7 years old, Yuqing was one of the youngest candidates ever to be accepted to the Juilliard School Pre- College Division, where he later went on to win the Junior and Senior Concerto Competitions. In 2007, he also received the Jack Kent Cooke Young Artist award.

Katherine Orazem, a 17-year-old from Ames, in my home State of Iowa, has written a collection of sonnets, short stories, and essays entitled ``After Elegies'' that delves into the human issue of death and examines those who have gone through loss. She looks at these issues from many perspectives, including the loss a widow must face, the denial of his wife's death by a husband, and the pain an apostate feels who has lost her faith. Through her work, we have come to understand the human condition and its variety of responses to death and loss.

A 15-year-old from Norristown, PA, Janet Song has created a urine test to detect the early signs of cancer. She has been able to isolate short circulatory DNA found in urine to identify tumor sites. Janet's new method has made cancer screening less unpleasant, less invasive, and cheaper than current methods.

Columbia, SC, native Graham Van Schaik has researched pyrethroids that are found in common household and garden pesticides. He even discovered that pyrethroids are used in over 30 commercial crops and have had the effect of cellular proliferation in breast cells, a sign of cancer and neurite retractions in neurons which is a sign of neurodegenerative disease.

Nora Xu, a 17-year-old from Naperville, IL, has developed a different method of determining the crystal structure of nanocrystalline superlattice thin films. Using a three dimensional model of the nanocrystalline superlattice, she found that x-ray scattering pattern intensities can be applied to molecules and atoms. Her work has potential in the area of optical and electron microscopes and the ability to deliver drugs to cancerous tumors.

Mr. President, these are 17 very talented, hard-working, motivated young men and women who are making advances in music, science, literature, mathematics, and technology for the betterment of society. I would like to thank all these young people for their willingness to seek out new horizons and make the world a better place. I would also like to personally thank the Davidson Institute for their support of these young individuals. In an ever-changing world, it is the young who show hope for the future. I can honestly say, after learning about every one of these kids, that I have great hope for the future.

I agree with my colleague, Senator Baucus. I have been working a long time on legislation to permit the use of Medicare data to improve drug safety. After all this is some of the best and most complete data available. In fact, Senator Baucus and I joined together to introduce legislation to accomplish just that during the 109th Congress, S. 3987, the Medicare Data Access and Research Act, and this Congress, S. 1507, the Access to Medicare Data Act of 2007. Improving drug safety is a top priority of mine and the appropriate use of Medicare data will likely enhance drug safety. That will benefit all Americans. I look forward to completing our goals for Medicare data later this year and including this on legislation within the purview of the Finance Committee. We intend to clarify how Federal health agencies may use and release Medicare data and make the appropriate amendments in the Social Security Act. At that point, it will be important that the use of Medicare data be appropriately tied into the drug safety provisions of the FDA bill under consideration today. We would hope that our colleague, Senator Kennedy, would agree to make conforming amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as needed to make FDA law consistent with appropriate Medicare law.

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

Madam President, I am here to follow through on a promise I made back on June 13. At that time, after several speeches on the alternative minimum tax, I said I was going to continue talking about the alternative minimum tax until Congress took action to protect the roughly 19 million families and individuals who will be hit by it in 2007 who did not have to pay it in 2006--19 million families now affected who weren't affected last year.

I am also here to talk about a promise Congress needs to follow through on, which is to protect these 19 million families and individuals from the alternative minimum tax for the tax year we are in right now, 2007.

In 2006, 4.2 million families and individuals were captured by the AMT. For taxable year 2006, the legislation that temporarily increased the amount of income exempt from the alternative minimum tax expired. So, right now, and for the last 9 months, under current law, we expect around 23 million families and individuals to fall victim to the alternative minimum tax if Congress doesn't act.

This chart illustrates the current situation, using the figures I have already referred to: 4.2 million people were paying the alternative minimum tax last year. But what is submerged underneath the surface there is the 19 million people who are affected because Congress has not taken action yet. Tax year 2007, then, is represented by the boat and is rapidly approaching the AMT iceberg. Right now, most of the iceberg--the part that represents the 19 million additional taxpayers who will be caught by the alternative minimum tax this year-- is under water.

The full magnitude of this imminent disaster will become apparent when those 19 million families and individuals start working on their 2007 tax returns starting January 2 of next year. Actually, the situation is worse than I implied--if you can imagine that it can be any worse than that. I wish to say that many families have already fallen victim to the alternative minimum tax. Of course, I am referring to those taxpayers who have to file quarterly returns, quarterly estimated returns.

The last time I spoke to you here on the Senate floor was on the occasion of the estimated tax payments for the second quarter due. I wish to say I am also speaking to my fellow Senators, but I am not sure how many of them might be listening because between June, when I spoke last, and the 3 months since, estimated tax payments for the third quarter were due this past Monday, September 17.

Before I go further, I want to specifically address the size of the population that makes estimated tax payments. In case anyone is thinking this is a very small group of people, the statistics of the income division of the IRS state that for tax year 2004, almost 11 million families and individuals made estimated tax payments. I am not saying each of those filers would be captured this year by the alternative minimum tax, but I surely want to remind everybody of the possibility that the number of people making estimated tax payments is very large, and that those among them hit by the AMT--we have already failed them by not taking care of this before the first payments were made in January.

As I have said, I last addressed the AMT on the Senate floor 3 months ago. In that time, no progress has been made on taking care of the problem of the AMT.

The next chart actually portrays what the Senate leadership has accomplished in the past 3 months in regard to this issue. It shows a giant goose egg. I have served the people in Iowa in Congress for many years. In that time, I have learned that generally things do not happen overnight. It takes time to formulate ideas, and it takes time to build enough support to take action. That is why I am particularly unhappy with this giant goose egg.

The current leadership has indicated that they have much they wish to accomplish this year. Time is rapidly running out and a plan for dealing with the AMT has not been proposed, much less a specific solution. The prospects of the AMT swallowing huge swaths of taxpayers is not a new problem. But until now, we have been able to keep it in check and not be 3 months away from 19 million more taxpayers being hit by it.

Since 2001, the Finance Committee has produced bipartisan packages--I emphasize bipartisan--that have continually increased the amount of income that is exempt from the alternative minimum tax. This was possible thanks to the help of Senator Baucus, currently chairman of the Finance Committee. Together, Senator Baucus and I were able to minimize the damage caused by the AMT. These increases in exemptions, designed to keep pace with inflation and slow the spread of the alternative minimum tax, were never what I envisioned as a permanent solution. Rather, I consider a permanent solution to be the policies represented in a bill with the number S. 55, called the Individual Alternative Minimum Tax Repeal Act.

Once again, I have to credit Chairman Baucus for his advocacy on behalf of tax fairness, as he introduced this bill with me, with Senators Crapo, Kyl, and Schumer signing on as cosponsors, and Senators Lautenberg, Roberts, and Smith also signed on as cosponsors.

In case any of our friends in the House of Representatives are paying attention, a companion bill exists in H.R. 1366, called the Individual AMT Repeal Act. It was introduced by Congressman Phil English of Pennsylvania. What these bills--the ones I introduced in the Senate and Phil English's bill--accomplish is to completely repeal the AMT without offsetting it. That is, these bills do not replace taxes no longer collected from the AMT by raising taxes someplace else. I think it is very important to ensure that revenues that the Federal Government does not collect as a result of the alternative minimum tax reform are not collected someplace else.

The alternative minimum tax was never meant to raise revenue from the middle class of America and was certainly not meant to bring in the amount of money under existing budget law and, oddly, that the Congressional Budget Office has to count. In other words, it should not be counted in the first place if you weren't intended to tax these middle-income taxpayers, but it happens because the AMT was not indexed. The AMT, then, was conceived as a way to promote basic tax fairness in response to concern about a very small number of wealthy taxpayers who were able to eliminate their entire income tax liability through legal means.

The tax created to deal with this--the AMT--was originally, back in 1969, created with the impact at that time of affecting about 1 person out of 500,000. Now, over the course of 38 years, this small salute to tax fairness has grown into a monstrosity of a revenue raiser.

The next chart is taken from the Long-Term Budget Outlook, a Congressional Budget Office publication. It was last published in December 2005. These are the latest figures I have. This illustrates how the alternative minimum tax will swallow more taxpayers as revenue is collected from the alternative minimum tax, being the green line on the chart, over a period of the next 45 years almost, or any time between now and the next 45 years. You can see how it continually grows.

That is what the CBO, through the present budget laws, has to count. But they count it from people--remember, the middle-income people who were never supposed to pay it as opposed to the superrich, a very small number of people, who would take advantage of every legal loophole--I emphasize ``legal'' loophole--and not pay a regular income tax but pay the AMT. I suppose that is out of the theory that everybody living in this country, particularly the wealthy, ought to pay a little bit of tax as a matter of fairness. You can argue whether that is a good rationale, but that was the rationale back in 1969.

So you can see that there is a massive amount of revenue projected to come in from people who were never supposed to pay it that somehow you are supposed to offset, so that that revenue that was never supposed to come in is not lost. I know that doesn't sound reasonable to the average commonsense American listening to me out there, but that is the way our budget laws are, and that is the way Congress has to respond to it, whether it makes sense or not.

Left alone, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that more than 60 percent of the families and individuals in America will fall prey to the alternative minimum tax as it absorbs more than 15 percent of the total tax liability by the year 2050.

This next chart, which is taken from the same congressional office publication, illustrates how under current law revenues collected by the Government are projected to push above their historical average and keep growing as the AMT brings in more and more money. We can see the historical average into the future for 40 years, but it

follows a historical average going back 40 years before now, and because of the alternative minimum tax mostly but also for other law changes, current law, we are going to see the revenue coming in to the Federal Government growing to almost 25 percent of gross national product.

From a philosophical point of view and economic point of view, what is wrong with that? Philosophically, there is less freedom for the Americans. As we spend more of their money, they have less economic freedom. But more importantly, the economic harm that comes from 535 Members of Congress spending 25 percent of the gross national product instead of using the historical average of about 18 percent, that 7 percent difference means we are going to make decisions on how to spend it instead of the 137 million taxpayers in this country deciding how to spend it, where it will turn over the economy more times than if we spend it and do more economic good and create more jobs and have more economic freedom.

That is what is at stake in this whole debate if we do not do anything about the alternative minimum tax and it continues to grow to 15 percent of the total tax liability by the year 2050. This chart points out the increasing power of Congress through taking more money from the taxpayers without even changing the law if we do not do something about this alternative minimum tax.

Anyone who maintains that the alternative minimum tax reform or repeal needs to be offset is not actually doing anything about the problem these charts illustrate. The problems the alternative minimum tax is responsible for are the ballooning Federal revenues above historical levels and a burden on middle-class taxpayers that keeps increasing over time. Offsetting the alternative minimum tax revenue does absolutely nothing to address these issues, and it seems to me to be an attempt to pretend to solve a real problem by actually trying to hide that problem.

Aside from the long-term problems with the alternative minimum tax that we can solve by repealing it, the alternative minimum tax poses a short-term problem to the taxpayers who will fall into its clutches this year if Congress does not act.

Putting aside the legitimacy of keeping this tax, it is not doing what it was intended to do. Putting aside the long-term solution, we are going to end up right now with 19 million more families and individuals being caught by the AMT this year. That 19 million will probably include many taxpayers making estimated tax payments. Some of these families and individuals may not be taking the AMT into account as they make their quarterly payments simply because they do not realize they ought to take this into consideration.

Additionally, there may be some taxpayers who are required to make estimated tax payments when subject to the alternative minimum tax but are not required to make the estimated payments under the regular income tax system. At the end of this tax year, not only could those well-meaning filers find themselves subject to the alternative minimum tax, but they could also face the increased insult of being fined by the IRS for unintentionally miscalculating their estimated tax payments.

I do not believe these well-intentioned taxpayers ought to be penalized because Congress has not come through on its promise to at least keep the AMT from running wild--in other words, going beyond those 4.5 million taxpayers who are already hit by it and not including the 19 million who are otherwise being hit because of inaction so far.

That is why, on July 23, I dealt with this penalty issue by introducing S. 1855, called the AMT Penalty Protection Act. This legislation protects individuals from a penalty for failing to pay estimated taxes on amounts attributable to the AMT in cases where the taxpayers were not subject to the AMT last year. This is not a giveaway meant to compensate for the AMT, as it does not protect taxpayers who paid the AMT last year. Rather, this bill protects the families and individuals who do not yet appreciate the horrible impact our failure to act is going to have on them.

I am not the only one who thinks this legislation is a good idea. We have these Senators--Senators Allard, Brownback, Collins, Hutchison, Smith, and Snowe--agreeing to cosponsor the legislation.

In addition, I have received letters from the Committee on Personal Income Taxation, the New York City Bar, as well as the National Association of Enrolled Agents in support of the provisions of this safe harbor bill so that the IRS cannot apply interest and penalties resulting from the failure to pay estimated taxes on amounts resulting from the AMT in cases where the taxpayers were not liable for the AMT last year.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters to which I just referred.

Mr. President, I would like to believe this legislation is not necessary because we are going to prevent the AMT from swallowing 19 million taxpayers in 2000, but I am not optimistic considering the fact we have not acted yet.

In closing, I encourage--and it is meant to encourage--the Democratic leadership to keep our promise with the American taxpayers and at least modify the exemption amounts for 2007. Of course, the best option is to completely repeal the AMT, and I am going to raise this issue with the Finance Committee members, and I am going to raise the issue with Members outside the committee. We ought to just get rid of it. It is stupid to be saying we are going to collect revenue from people who were never intended to pay, but we are counting that revenue. It is a big shell game. So I will be talking with my colleagues about the sensibility of just getting rid of something.

I will tell my colleagues another reason for getting rid of the AMT. It is supposed to hit the super-rich. We are told by the IRS right now that there are about 2,500 of these super-rich who ought to be paying the alternative minimum tax--we would expect them to pay the alternative minimum tax--but they have found ways legally of even avoiding the alternative minimum tax. So we ought to just get rid of it. But for the time being, the only thing the taxpayers can rely on is the same goose egg we have been sitting on all year.

Mr. President, I also wish to use my time to address another issue. I would like to continue, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the ethics bill has now been signed into law and, as my colleagues are aware, it contains new requirements about what we in the Senate call holds, meaning an individual Senator can hold up a bill all by himself from coming up.

Senators may be wondering what exactly is required under these new requirements about holds and how it is going to work. As a coauthor of the original measure, I have to tell my colleagues that I don't know how it is going to work. The provisions have been rewritten from what we had originally adopted on the floor of the Senate by a very wide margin. I am not even sure by whom this has been rewritten because it was a closed process and Republicans were not invited to participate in that process.

Now I am trying to understand how these provisions will work. Let me give a little background.

I have been working for some time, along with Senator Wyden of Oregon, to end the practice of secret holds through a rules change or through what we call in the Senate a standing order. I do not believe there is any legitimate reason a single Senator should be able to anonymously--I emphasize anonymously--block a bill or nomination. I do not argue with an individual Senator blocking a bill. I do that myself. But I do not think it should be secret. We ought to know who is doing it because the public's business--and the Senate is all about the public's business; we are on television--the public's business ought to be public, and we ought to know who that person is. If a Senator has the guts to place a hold, they ought to have the guts to say who they are and why they think that bill ought to be held up. If there is a legitimate reason for a hold, then Senators should have no fear about it being public.

I am not talking hypothetically; I am speaking from my experience. I have voluntarily practiced public holds for a decade or more, and I have had absolutely no cause to regret telling all my colleagues and the whole country why I am holding up a bill and who Chuck Grassley is so they can come and talk with me if they want to talk with me about it, know what the rationale is, and maybe we will want to work something out.

Through the years, there have been several times when the leaders of the two parties have agreed to work with Senator Wyden and me to address this issue, albeit in a way different than what maybe we would have proposed. I have approached these opportunities with optimism, only later on to be disappointed.

For instance, in 1999, at the start of the 106th Congress, Majority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all Senators outlining a new policy that any Senators placing a hold must notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction. It went on to state that written notification of the holds should be provided to respective leaders, and staff holds--in other

words, staff for the Senator placing holds--would not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification. All that sounds good if it worked out that way. But I want to tell my colleagues, this policy announced in 1999 was quickly forgotten or ignored by Senators, and the people who could enforce it actually did not enforce it.

Then, recognizing that the previous ``Dear Colleague'' letter was not effective, Leaders Frist and Daschle sent another ``Dear Colleague'' letter in 2003 that purported to have some sort of enforcement mechanism. The new policy required notification of the legislation's sponsor if and only if a member was of their party, as well as notification of the senior party member on the committee of jurisdiction. In other words, this new policy required less disclosure than the previous policy since it only affected holds by members of the same party. Nonetheless, the leaders promised that if the disclosure was not made, they would disclose the hold. It also reiterated that staff holds would not be honored unless accompanied by written notification.

That policy had more holes in it than Swiss cheese. I am not sure anyone understood the policy, and it had no effect that I can tell on improving transparency in a public body, the Senate, where we are on television and the public's business--all of the public's business-- ought to be public.

No longer willing to settle for half measures such as we had been dealt in 1999 and 2003 that do not end secret holds once and for all, in the last Congress, Senator Wyden and I then took our own initiative, not waiting for leaders to act. We offered our standing order to require full public disclosure of all holds as an amendment to the lobbying reform bill. It was a well-thought-out measure that was drafted with the help of people who know about how this place operates--Senator Lott and Senator Byrd. Remember, Senator Byrd has been around here for a half century. We used their insights and their knowledge of Senate procedures as former majority leaders to write our legislation.

Our standing order passed the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13. Now think of that, this Senate making a decision that holds should not be secret anymore by a vote of 84 to 13. But listen to what happened after that 84-to-13 vote. While that bill did not become law, it became a starting point for the ethics bill passed by the Senate last year.

I thought the leaders had finally accepted that we would have full disclosure of holds. In fact, our secret holds provisions remained intact in the version of the ethics bill that originally passed the Senate earlier this year. Then, even though the secret holds provisions related only to the Senate--nothing to do with the other body, the House of Representatives--and had already been passed by the Senate, on a voice vote this time but reflecting the reality of the 84-to-13 vote before, they were rewritten behind closed doors by Members of the majority party.

Once again, I feel like half measures have been substituted for real reform. In other words, the provisions that had passed one time by 84 to 13, only affecting us, went to conference--where they didn't have to go to conference because it only affected us, it didn't affect the other body--and we end up with no real reform.

Under the rewritten provisions, a Senator will only have to disclose a hold ``following the objections to a unanimous consent to proceeding to, and, or passage of, a measure or matter on their behalf.''

Now, that is going to puzzle you like it puzzles me. Obviously, in this case, the hold would already have existed well before any objection. In fact, most holds never even get to this stage because the mere threat of a hold prevents unanimous consent requests from being made in the first place. This is particularly true if the Senator placing the hold is a member of the majority party. In that case, the majority leader would simply not ask unanimous consent, knowing that a member of his party has a hold.

For instance, it is not clear to me what would happen if the minority leader asked unanimous consent to proceed to a bill and the majority leader objected on his own behalf to protect his prerogative to set the agenda but also having the effect of honoring the hold of another member of the majority leader's caucus. Or what if the majority leader asked unanimous consent to proceed to a bill and the minority leader objects but does not specify on whose behalf, even though a member of the minority party has a hold. Would the minority Senator with the hold then be required to disclose the hold? I don't know. It is not very clear.

I asked the Office of the Parliamentarian for an opinion about how the new provision would work in such instances, but with no legislative history--because this was written behind closed doors there is no report to come out--with no legislative history for the changes that were made to the Wyden-Grassley measure, the intent of the rewritten provisions was not evident is what the Parliamentarian said. Therefore, what did I do? I wrote to the Senate Rules Committee to provide insight into the content of the rewritten provisions.

The response referred me to a section-by-section analysis of the bill in the Congressional Record that essentially restates the provisions but once again sheds no light on the specific questions about how this works. Perhaps that is because the answer might be a little embarrassing.

Depending upon how the new provisions are interpreted in the first instance I mentioned, it is possible that holds by members of the majority party will never be made public. In the second instance, a literal interpretation of the provision might indicate that either leader could choose to keep a hold by a member of their party secret so long as they do not specify publicly that their objection is on behalf of another Senator.

The Rules Committee letter claims the changes were intended to make the provision ``workable.'' It seems to me it is quite obvious that, unless somebody can answer these questions--I have asked the Parliamentarian and the Rules Committee and no answers yet--I don't see how the new provisions are any more workable than the original. On the contrary, they are not only unworkable, they undermine transparency. They make it more difficult for this body that is on television every day, where everything we do is the public's business. We want the public to know about it or we wouldn't be on television. Don't you think if a Senator has a hold on a bill, we ought to know who that Senator is and why he has a hold?

Under the changes, not only is the disclosure of holds only required after formal objection has been made to a unanimous consent request, but Senators then have a full 6 session days to make their disclosure public. What is more, a new provision was added specifying that holds lasting up to 6 days may remain secret--remain secret--forever.

What is the justification for that? Six days is more than enough time to kill a bill at the end of the session. And we are saying it is okay for Senators to do that in secret?

There are other changes that are puzzling to me. For instance, our original measure required holds to be submitted in writing in order to be honored, to prevent staff from placing holds without the knowledge of the Senator. However, in the rewrite of what Senator Wyden and I originally put in, Senators now must be given written notice to the respective leaders of their ``intent to object'' only after the leader has already objected on the Senator's behalf. This is not only unworkable, but I think you would agree it sounds very absurd.

I have stated repeatedly and emphatically that as a matter relating to Senate procedure, it would be completely illegitimate to alter in any way the original Senate-passed measure requiring full disclosure of holds. The U.S. Constitution makes clear, ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''

The hold is a unique feature of the Senate arising out of its own rules and practices, with no equivalent in the House of Representatives. As such, there is no legitimate reason why this provision, having already passed the Senate, should have been altered in the first place and in any way. Nevertheless, it was altered in a very substantial way. In fact, it was altered in a way that I fear will allow secrecy to continue in this institution.

Clearly, the so-called Honest Leadership and Open Government Act was

handled by the majority party in a way that is anything but what the title of the bill implies.

So as you can tell, I have been frustrated so far in my attempts to find answers about how the rewritten provisions will be applied, but we will find out soon enough. Because I can assure you I will not give up until I am satisfied the public's business in this Senate is being done in a public way.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I wrote to the Rules Committee and the response I got back.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?

I ask to speak--it will not be for a very long time but longer than the usual 10 minutes allotted.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 2041 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a short period of time on another issue that I have been working on.

Yesterday, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study on the diabetes drug Avandia. This study concluded Avandia significantly increases the risk of heart attacks, a subject that Senator Baucus and I have been investigating for some months. You will remember that it was back in May that a study in the New England Journal of Medicine first alerted the public of an increased risk of heart attacks from Avandia.

When that study was published, Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I raised concerns that the drugmaker had sought to silence a critic who voiced apprehension about Avandia back in 1999. Remember, this is 8 years ago. At the time, SmithKline Beecham manufactured Avandia. The company later merged with Glaxo Wellcome to form today's GlaxoSmithKline.

According to the Wall Street Journal, GlaxoSmithKline said the allegations that the company silenced critics of Avandia were ``absolutely false.''

Today I would like to discuss some internal company communications that suggest otherwise. The person who first blew the whistle about cardiovascular problems with Avandia was Dr. John Buse. He was a professor at the University of North Carolina.

Shortly after Avandia came on the market, back in 1999, Dr. Buse began warning his colleagues at medical meetings that the drug might be dangerous.

How did this company respond when this professor brought up these issues? In an e-mail dated June 25, 1999, two company executives discussed ways to silence Dr. Buse. I would like to read parts of the e-mail. One executive wrote of a plan to ``write him a firm letter that would warn him about doing this again . . . with the punishment being that we will complain up his academic line and to the CME granting bodies that accredit his activities.''

CME stands for continuing medical education. I will come back to that in just a second.

In response, another company executive e-mailed back, proposing to sue Dr. Buse and launched a media offensive promoting Avandia.

Based on this e-mail exchange, it seems to me that at least two drug company officials did attempt to silence a critic. In fact, Dr. Buse stopped making any critical statements about Avandia shortly after this e-mail exchange. Scientists should be able to raise issues related to public health and safety in a free and uncensored manner, not the way they do things in China. And when these scientists are suppressed, we ought to consider that a very serious problem. The reason why is because the scientific process will take care of itself. If scientist Grassley has a suggestion and you think it is crazy, you are a scientist, my work can be reviewed by you and it has to stand the test of peer review. So I think it is a very good process, and if we just let it go on, it will show whether this scientist or that scientist is right or wrong.

The scientific process, if suppressed, I say, is a very serious problem. But more important in this whole process, the American public loses. Instead of Avandia being more critically examined for safety, it was heavily marketed and became what experts have called the best selling diabetes drug in America. It has been reported to me that this huge volume of sales may have resulted in 60,000 to 100,000 heart attacks from 1999 until the year 2006--that is about 20 a day--from the users of Avandia.

What happened to the company executives who sought to attack Dr. Buse for voicing his scientific opinion? Based on the information I have received to date, nothing has happened to these corporate executives.

Let me return to the issue of continuing medical education. In the e- mail exchange I quoted, the two company officials discussed complaining about Dr. Buse to the accrediting bodies of continuing medical education. Every year, medical professionals must get continuing medical education credits to stay current in their profession. The continuing medical education companies and the doctors who teach the classes are supposed to be independent of drug companies that fund the courses. But I think we now know what we have often suspected: Continuing medical education courses often are not independent at all. In fact, the drug companies have a lot to say about what goes on in these courses and who gets paid to teach them.

In April, the Finance Committee staff released a report on pharmaceutical company support of continuing medical education. Drug companies pour about $1 billion every year into continuing medical education, and the report noted that some educational courses have become veiled forms of advertising.

Of course, this also ties in to last week's introduction of the bill I submitted called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act. I introduced that bill with Senator Kohl, who is chairman of the Aging Committee, because Americans have a right to know how the drug companies are using money to try to shape the medical field. The bill requires drug and device companies to report payments and other gifts they give to doctors, bringing a little transparency to the practice of companies such as GlaxoSmithKline. I hope to see more of my colleagues sign on to this legislation. I cannot spotlight every instance where a drug company goes after an independent scientist with a stick, as they did with Dr. Buse, but together we can splash some sunlight on the financial carrots drug companies use to try to shape doctors' behavior.

Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have the e-mails I referred to printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, for 27 years, I have come to the Senate floor to discuss legislation that will help the Government run efficiently and effectively. I have been an outspoken advocate for whistleblowers, which whistleblowers in good faith bring forth information about waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. I have championed oversight efforts, and I have spent my time in the Senate asking the tough questions of Government bureaucrats in order to expose these problems, particularly problems that have been brought to my attention by patriotic whistleblowers.

One thing I learned from oversight is that no matter how engaged Congress may be, there are not enough hands to find all the waste, fraud, and abuse in Government programs. Instead, we have to rely then, as I have indicated, on those courageous and patriotic individuals who speak out and blow the whistle, to go to court to collect Government money that was lost to unscrupulous contractors who are selling false or fraudulent goods, in the case of 100 years ago, to Union troops because that is why the False Claims Act came about, and to make sure that we protect whistleblowers when a program is not working and taxpayers' dollars are being lost.

These whistleblowers, by sticking their necks out, are individuals often at risk. They risk everything to fix problems within our Government because they believe in doing their job the way it was intended to be done, and they probably do not get the attention of higher-ups in the bureaucracy. That is why they become whistleblowers and come to Congress to bring these faults out. Somehow they end up being as welcome in the bureaucracy as a skunk is at a picnic.

However, pointing out fraud is one thing; getting results, fixing the problem, and recouping taxpayers' money lost to fraud, waste, and abuse is quite another thing.

The key to recouping these lost funds is ensuring that we have effective laws on the books. One such law is the Federal False Claims Act. I have come to the floor today to remind people about the history of the False Claims Act, but also to suggest some improvements in that act so it can be an even more useful tool in the fight against waste, fraud, abuse, and the protection of whistleblowers.

I have referred to the False Claims Act. This is known as the Lincoln law because it has some history going back to the Civil War. The Lincoln law was originally passed by Congress to combat war profiteering by Government contractors during the Civil War. The False Claims Act allowed individual citizen whistleblowers to go to court to collect Government money that was lost to unscrupulous contractors who were selling false or fraudulent goods to Union troops.

This legal mechanism, known as qui tam, a Latin term, is the key component to the False Claims Act allowing individual citizens to act as private attorneys general to help stop fraud and recover lost money. However, following World War II, the False Claims Act was weakened by an act of Congress which lowered the penalties limiting the money the Government could recover from fraud. This remained the state and the language of the False Claims Act until 1986 when I authored amendments to the act which restored teeth and breathed new air and new life into a law that was designed to protect all American taxpayers.

I am happy to report that in the 20 years since I introduced and Congress passed the 1986 amendment, the Federal Government has used the False Claims Act to recover over $20 billion from those who defraud Government. That is $20 billion that would otherwise be lost and gone forever.

More importantly, this $20 billion serves as a deterrent reminder to those who wish to steal from the Government. We cannot measure the deterrent value of this legislation, but I personally feel, and I have had students of Government tell me, the deterrent value of the False Claims Act is much greater than even the $20 billion that we can quantify that has come back to the Federal Treasury.

Today, the False Claims Act faces a situation where it may not be as effective as intended. Recent decisions by Federal courts have limited the False Claims Act in a way that was not envisioned when I authored the 1986 amendments. These court decisions threaten to undermine both the spirit and intent of the 1986 amendments.

The first case, U.S. Totten v. Bombardier Corporation, held that false claims presented to Government grantees, in this case employees at Amtrak, were not actually presented to the Federal Government. As a result, the Government was precluded from recovering money lost to fraud and abuse perpetuated against Amtrak.

The second case, Rockwell International Corporation, et al, v. U.S.,

was decided earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court interpreted an area of the False Claims Act, known as the public disclosure bar, which prohibits a false claims case from moving forward if the case is based upon publicly disclosed information, such as a government report, unless the whistleblower filing the case was the ``original source'' of the information.

Now here, the Supreme Court held that a qui tam whistleblower was barred from receiving a share of any money recovered unless that whistleblower was the original source of all claims ultimately settled. Now, I say to my colleagues that this may not sound like a very troublesome decision. However, it is, and the impact is that oftentimes a case is brought by a whistleblower on a certain set of facts and then expanded by the Department of Justice, which ultimately settles on other grounds. As a result, this case creates a disincentive for a whistleblower to bring forth information about fraud, as they may not get to share in any part of the recovery.

You see, one of the incentives for the whistleblowers is if they bring a case that brings back money into the Federal Treasury, they get part of that settlement as an incentive to do this. Quite frankly, a whistleblower sticks their neck out. By doing the right thing, they are probably ruining themselves professionally. Let us say that they get part of the recovery. Well, the Federal Government gets billions of dollars that we would not have even gotten if we had not had the information from the whistleblower. That is why the whistleblower is very important.

Now, there is another case that gives us problems. This third case that challenges the intent of the False Claims Act is United States DRC v. Custer Battles, decided a year ago. In that case, a jury found that a defense contractor in Iraq had defrauded the Government of $10 million. However, the judge overturned the jury verdict, finding that the money lost was not U.S. taxpayer money but was instead Iraqi money under the control of the U.S. Government. As a result of this case, the U.S. Government may not recover for any fraud committed against the U.S. Government if the funds are not American funds, even if the U.S. Government has been entrusted with the management of those funds.

These decisions, I can tell you as author of this legislation, are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the 1986 amendments. Today, I am joined by Senator Durbin as the lead cosponsor, along with Senator Leahy and Senator Specter--and in those two individuals I will say that Senator Leahy is chairman of the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction, and Senator Specter is the former chairman of the committee and now the Ranking Republican--so I feel by having Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter as cosponsors of this False Claims Act Correction Act, as powers within the Senate to bring attention to what the courts have done, this injustice to the False Claims Act and gutting of the False Claims Act, this act will bring it back to its original intent.

This legislation will correct judicial interpretations damaging the False Claims Act. This bill is narrowly tailored to ensure that the intent of Congress in the 1986 amendments is upheld and nothing more. The False Claims Act Correction Act will correct these three judicial interpretations in addition to also making technical and correcting amendments.

First, the bill will address the Totten decision by removing the requirement that false claims be directly presented to a government official, instead tying the liability directly to Government money and property.

Next, the bill will address the Rockwell decision by requiring the Attorney General to file a timely motion to dismiss claims that violate the public disclosure bar. By allowing the Attorney General to present to the court information about public disclosures upfront in a case, the bill would eliminate procedural uncertainties that exist now by allowing public disclosures to be addressed at any time in the case.

The False Claims Act Correction Act also clarifies that nontaxpayer funds under the trust and administration of the U.S. Government subject to fraud are actionable under the False Claims Act. Thus, money directly under the control of the U.S. Government subject to fraud that are currently outside the scope of the False Claims Act would now be covered. This will correct the problems that have arisen following the decision in the Custer Battles case.

Additionally, the bill clarifies a split between the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal that currently exists regarding whether a government employee may file a False Claims Act case. More specifically, the bill provides that a government employee would be able to bring a False Claims Act case based upon information learned in the course of their employment, only when the employee: No. 1, discloses the fraud to their supervisors; No. 2, discloses the fraud to the inspector general of that agency; and, No. 3, discloses the fraud to the Attorney General and then waits 12 months without the Government acting. After these conditions are met, then, and only then, may a government employee act as a qui tam whistleblower.

Finally, the bill makes two technical corrections to the False Claims Act. The first is a technical-correcting amendment that clarifies the statute of limitations. The second is a technical amendment to the civil investigative demands that the Department of Justice is already authorized to issue. These technical corrections will streamline the procedures for filing as well as prosecuting False Claims Act cases by both qui tam whistleblowers as well as cases instituted originally by the Department of Justice.

The False Claims Act Correction Act is a narrowly tailored bill that seeks to ensure the legislative intent of the 1986 amendments is truly understood. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American taxpayer issue. I am proud to say this bill has strong bipartisan support, as I am joined by Senator Durbin as the lead Democratic cosponsor, and I wish to emphasize Senator Leahy's and Senator Specter's cosponsorship of this legislation.

I am glad we have a bipartisan coalition ready to work to fix the False Claims Act with these narrowly tailored corrections, but I encourage my colleagues not to bow to special interest groups who have worked to weaken the No. 1 tool for recovering Government dollars lost to fraud.

I will say at this point that yesterday I had a private discussion with a Senator who will go unnamed. He said, even as corrective as this legislation is, and it is only meant to be correcting, that already we have the pharmaceutical companies out working against this legislation. So this may not be easy to get through, even though it is sticking with the original intent. So I don't want to get into a situation such as I did in 1986, when we wrote a bill that was bipartisan, and it took about a year to get the various holds off that were put on this. In those days, we had secret holds. Under the new rules of the Senate, we are not supposed to have any secret holds anymore.

So if people have complaints about this legislation, I wish to work it out, but I don't know how anybody can hold up legislation where the underlying legislation has brought $20 billion that would have otherwise been lost to fraud back to the Federal Treasury. The American taxpayers deserve a law that detects, prevents, and recovers money lost to fraud. The False Claims Act works and has recovered this $20 billion, and that law is 20 years old. But let me say this money didn't start rolling in until about 6 or 7 years after that 1986 law was passed.

The False Claims Act Correction Act will provide necessary and narrowly tailored corrections to ensure that the False Claims Act works to protect the taxpayers into the future, as I visualized it would in 1986 in spirit as well as in letter. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I have had the pleasure of having the Presiding Officer ask to be a cosponsor of the bill, so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor at this point.

Mr. President, for 27 years, I have come to the Senate floor to discuss legislation that will help the Government run efficiently and effectively. I have been an outspoken advocate for whistleblowers, which whistleblowers in good faith bring forth information about waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. I have championed oversight efforts, and I have spent my time in the Senate asking the tough questions of Government bureaucrats in order to expose these problems, particularly problems that have been brought to my attention by patriotic whistleblowers.

One thing I learned from oversight is that no matter how engaged Congress may be, there are not enough hands to find all the waste, fraud, and abuse in Government programs. Instead, we have to rely then, as I have indicated, on those courageous and patriotic individuals who speak out and blow the whistle, to go to court to collect Government money that was lost to unscrupulous contractors who are selling false or fraudulent goods, in the case of 100 years ago, to Union troops because that is why the False Claims Act came about, and to make sure that we protect whistleblowers when a program is not working and taxpayers' dollars are being lost.

These whistleblowers, by sticking their necks out, are individuals often at risk. They risk everything to fix problems within our Government because they believe in doing their job the way it was intended to be done, and they probably do not get the attention of higher-ups in the bureaucracy. That is why they become whistleblowers and come to Congress to bring these faults out. Somehow they end up being as welcome in the bureaucracy as a skunk is at a picnic.

However, pointing out fraud is one thing; getting results, fixing the problem, and recouping taxpayers' money lost to fraud, waste, and abuse is quite another thing.

The key to recouping these lost funds is ensuring that we have effective laws on the books. One such law is the Federal False Claims Act. I have come to the floor today to remind people about the history of the False Claims Act, but also to suggest some improvements in that act so it can be an even more useful tool in the fight against waste, fraud, abuse, and the protection of whistleblowers.

I have referred to the False Claims Act. This is known as the Lincoln law because it has some history going back to the Civil War. The Lincoln law was originally passed by Congress to combat war profiteering by Government contractors during the Civil War. The False Claims Act allowed individual citizen whistleblowers to go to court to collect Government money that was lost to unscrupulous contractors who were selling false or fraudulent goods to Union troops.

This legal mechanism, known as qui tam, a Latin term, is the key component to the False Claims Act allowing individual citizens to act as private attorneys general to help stop fraud and recover lost money. However, following World War II, the False Claims Act was weakened by an act of Congress which lowered the penalties limiting the money the Government could recover from fraud. This remained the state and the language of the False Claims Act until 1986 when I authored amendments to the act which restored teeth and breathed new air and new life into a law that was designed to protect all American taxpayers.

I am happy to report that in the 20 years since I introduced and Congress passed the 1986 amendment, the Federal Government has used the False Claims Act to recover over $20 billion from those who defraud Government. That is $20 billion that would otherwise be lost and gone forever.

More importantly, this $20 billion serves as a deterrent reminder to those who wish to steal from the Government. We cannot measure the deterrent value of this legislation, but I personally feel, and I have had students of Government tell me, the deterrent value of the False Claims Act is much greater than even the $20 billion that we can quantify that has come back to the Federal Treasury.

Today, the False Claims Act faces a situation where it may not be as effective as intended. Recent decisions by Federal courts have limited the False Claims Act in a way that was not envisioned when I authored the 1986 amendments. These court decisions threaten to undermine both the spirit and intent of the 1986 amendments.

The first case, U.S. Totten v. Bombardier Corporation, held that false claims presented to Government grantees, in this case employees at Amtrak, were not actually presented to the Federal Government. As a result, the Government was precluded from recovering money lost to fraud and abuse perpetuated against Amtrak.

The second case, Rockwell International Corporation, et al, v. U.S.,

was decided earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court interpreted an area of the False Claims Act, known as the public disclosure bar, which prohibits a false claims case from moving forward if the case is based upon publicly disclosed information, such as a government report, unless the whistleblower filing the case was the ``original source'' of the information.

Now here, the Supreme Court held that a qui tam whistleblower was barred from receiving a share of any money recovered unless that whistleblower was the original source of all claims ultimately settled. Now, I say to my colleagues that this may not sound like a very troublesome decision. However, it is, and the impact is that oftentimes a case is brought by a whistleblower on a certain set of facts and then expanded by the Department of Justice, which ultimately settles on other grounds. As a result, this case creates a disincentive for a whistleblower to bring forth information about fraud, as they may not get to share in any part of the recovery.

You see, one of the incentives for the whistleblowers is if they bring a case that brings back money into the Federal Treasury, they get part of that settlement as an incentive to do this. Quite frankly, a whistleblower sticks their neck out. By doing the right thing, they are probably ruining themselves professionally. Let us say that they get part of the recovery. Well, the Federal Government gets billions of dollars that we would not have even gotten if we had not had the information from the whistleblower. That is why the whistleblower is very important.

Now, there is another case that gives us problems. This third case that challenges the intent of the False Claims Act is United States DRC v. Custer Battles, decided a year ago. In that case, a jury found that a defense contractor in Iraq had defrauded the Government of $10 million. However, the judge overturned the jury verdict, finding that the money lost was not U.S. taxpayer money but was instead Iraqi money under the control of the U.S. Government. As a result of this case, the U.S. Government may not recover for any fraud committed against the U.S. Government if the funds are not American funds, even if the U.S. Government has been entrusted with the management of those funds.

These decisions, I can tell you as author of this legislation, are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the 1986 amendments. Today, I am joined by Senator Durbin as the lead cosponsor, along with Senator Leahy and Senator Specter--and in those two individuals I will say that Senator Leahy is chairman of the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction, and Senator Specter is the former chairman of the committee and now the Ranking Republican--so I feel by having Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Specter as cosponsors of this False Claims Act Correction Act, as powers within the Senate to bring attention to what the courts have done, this injustice to the False Claims Act and gutting of the False Claims Act, this act will bring it back to its original intent.

This legislation will correct judicial interpretations damaging the False Claims Act. This bill is narrowly tailored to ensure that the intent of Congress in the 1986 amendments is upheld and nothing more. The False Claims Act Correction Act will correct these three judicial interpretations in addition to also making technical and correcting amendments.

First, the bill will address the Totten decision by removing the requirement that false claims be directly presented to a government official, instead tying the liability directly to Government money and property.

Next, the bill will address the Rockwell decision by requiring the Attorney General to file a timely motion to dismiss claims that violate the public disclosure bar. By allowing the Attorney General to present to the court information about public disclosures upfront in a case, the bill would eliminate procedural uncertainties that exist now by allowing public disclosures to be addressed at any time in the case.

The False Claims Act Correction Act also clarifies that nontaxpayer funds under the trust and administration of the U.S. Government subject to fraud are actionable under the False Claims Act. Thus, money directly under the control of the U.S. Government subject to fraud that are currently outside the scope of the False Claims Act would now be covered. This will correct the problems that have arisen following the decision in the Custer Battles case.

Additionally, the bill clarifies a split between the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal that currently exists regarding whether a government employee may file a False Claims Act case. More specifically, the bill provides that a government employee would be able to bring a False Claims Act case based upon information learned in the course of their employment, only when the employee: No. 1, discloses the fraud to their supervisors; No. 2, discloses the fraud to the inspector general of that agency; and, No. 3, discloses the fraud to the Attorney General and then waits 12 months without the Government acting. After these conditions are met, then, and only then, may a government employee act as a qui tam whistleblower.

Finally, the bill makes two technical corrections to the False Claims Act. The first is a technical-correcting amendment that clarifies the statute of limitations. The second is a technical amendment to the civil investigative demands that the Department of Justice is already authorized to issue. These technical corrections will streamline the procedures for filing as well as prosecuting False Claims Act cases by both qui tam whistleblowers as well as cases instituted originally by the Department of Justice.

The False Claims Act Correction Act is a narrowly tailored bill that seeks to ensure the legislative intent of the 1986 amendments is truly understood. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American taxpayer issue. I am proud to say this bill has strong bipartisan support, as I am joined by Senator Durbin as the lead Democratic cosponsor, and I wish to emphasize Senator Leahy's and Senator Specter's cosponsorship of this legislation.

I am glad we have a bipartisan coalition ready to work to fix the False Claims Act with these narrowly tailored corrections, but I encourage my colleagues not to bow to special interest groups who have worked to weaken the No. 1 tool for recovering Government dollars lost to fraud.

I will say at this point that yesterday I had a private discussion with a Senator who will go unnamed. He said, even as corrective as this legislation is, and it is only meant to be correcting, that already we have the pharmaceutical companies out working against this legislation. So this may not be easy to get through, even though it is sticking with the original intent. So I don't want to get into a situation such as I did in 1986, when we wrote a bill that was bipartisan, and it took about a year to get the various holds off that were put on this. In those days, we had secret holds. Under the new rules of the Senate, we are not supposed to have any secret holds anymore.

So if people have complaints about this legislation, I wish to work it out, but I don't know how anybody can hold up legislation where the underlying legislation has brought $20 billion that would have otherwise been lost to fraud back to the Federal Treasury. The American taxpayers deserve a law that detects, prevents, and recovers money lost to fraud. The False Claims Act works and has recovered this $20 billion, and that law is 20 years old. But let me say this money didn't start rolling in until about 6 or 7 years after that 1986 law was passed.

The False Claims Act Correction Act will provide necessary and narrowly tailored corrections to ensure that the False Claims Act works to protect the taxpayers into the future, as I visualized it would in 1986 in spirit as well as in letter. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I have had the pleasure of having the Presiding Officer ask to be a cosponsor of the bill, so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor at this point.

Mr. President, it is with great sorrow, on this day of the 6th Anniversary of the September 11th attacks, that I speak in honor of a fallen American hero. Army Sgt. Kevin Gilbertson died August 31st at the Landstuhl Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany, after losing a 2-day battle with injuries suffered after insurgents attacked his unit in Ramadi, Iraq. His courage and patriotism will be remembered. My thoughts and prayers go out to his friends and family, especially his parents, Keeley Peters and Don Gilbertson, as well as his wife, Nina, and sons, Timothy and Nickolas.

Sergeant Gilbertson was an independent, complex, and highly involved individual. He loved his family, he loved his country, and he loved being a U.S. Army soldier. Kevin Gilbertson's service to this country is greatly appreciated, and he will be sorely missed.

Kevin was a native of Cedar Rapids, IA. His father, Don Gilbertson, remembers him as ``the greatest kid in the world'' who ``joined the Army right out of high school to get a college education when he got out . . . His dream was getting a degree and supporting his family.'' Kevin Gilbertson will always be remembered as someone who gave everything he had for his country and who thought more about others than himself. For that we are eternally grateful.

Mr. President, on Tuesday Iowa gymnast Shawn Johnson and her USA teammates won the gold at the Gymnastics World Championships in Germany.

Shawn is a native of West Des Moines, IA, where she has trained in gymnastics with Coach Liang Chow since the age of six. How did this young girl from Iowa become a world champion gymnast? I think it may have been said best by her coach in an interview with the Des Moines Register earlier this week. Coach Chow said Shawn, ``loved gymnastics. She loved to work out. She wanted to learn, and to get better.''

It is that love for what she does that carried Shawn to be crowned National Champion in San Jose, CA, two weeks ago, and carried her even higher to win the World Championship this week. I hope that Shawn's dedication to this sport will inspire many others to achieve greatness within their respective fields as well.

It is with great Iowa pride that I offer my sincere congratulations to Shawn Johnson for her accomplishments.