Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following fellows with the Finance Committee be allowed the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the tax bills today: Mary Baker and Stuart Sirkin.

Mr. President, I strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I would like to thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy Committee, for his hard work in making this compromise possible. This legislation is a much needed step to increase the domestic production of natural gas and crude oil.

In recent years, the cost for natural gas has risen from the moderate, stable level of $3 per thousand cubic feet to $6, and even exceeded $10 last fall. Current prices are three times the average during the 1990s.

In just the past few days, natural gas prices have risen by nearly 15 percent. Why? Because the current heat wave crossing the country is putting a strain on our Nation's electrical grid--an electrical grid that is increasingly dependent on electricity generated from natural gas.

And, while the demand for natural gas has increased, we have done little as a nation to ensure that there is access to the domestic supply to meet the growing demand. For too many years, our country has had a ``natural gas and nothing else'' policy.

The Energy Policy Act, which we enacted a year ago, took significant steps to diversify our energy production and increase energy efficiency. The Energy bill included provisions to expand the use of clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. It also included provisions to expand the use of renewable and alternative energy and energy conservation. All of these provisions will help in the long term to balance and diversify our energy portfolio.

However, we need to take action today to increase the supply of domestically produced energy. The fact is, consumers in the United States are paying some of the highest natural gas costs in the world. This puts our farmers, manufacturers, and industrial users of natural gas at a competitive disadvantage.

Few things are as important to the livelihood and well-being of Iowa's economy than natural gas. Although the State of Iowa is considered a national leader in the agricultural industry, our manufacturing industry actually contributes five to six times more to Iowa's economy than agriculture. Manufacturers have been particularly hard hit by the increase in prices because they consume over one-third of our country's natural gas. I have heard from manufacturers across Iowa who have urged Congress to act to increase the supply of affordable natural gas.

Farming is also an extremely energy-intensive industry. Farmers and ranchers need large amounts of natural gas for drying crops, heating buildings, producing ethanol, and most importantly, as the feedstock of chemicals and fertilizers.

The vast majority of the cost of nitrogen fertilizers is natural gas. Numerous domestic manufacturers of ammonia and nitrogen fertilizer have closed in recent years due to higher costs. As a result, prices for their products have increased. Ammonia for fall application this year will cost a farmer nearly $400 a ton. This is double what it was just a few years ago.

This legislation will also help my constituents with their home heating and electricity bills. A significant portion of Iowa households use natural gas for their home heating. Even while the past few winters have been relatively mild, home heating bills have doubled and tripled for some families. And, while I have been an ardent supporter of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps the less fortunate pay for home heating, we must also recognize that the high prices are a result of the tight energy supply. One way to ensure that consumers aren't forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table is to lower the price for natural gas.

That is why I am eager to see this bill pass. The compromise bill before us will open up 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas leasing. It requires that leasing begin as soon as practicable but no later than 1 year after the date of enactment. This area is estimated to hold 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. This legislation will take a significant step to enhance our county's domestic energy supply.

This bill is a proactive response to the rising cost of energy and our growing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil. It is a bipartisan agreement that has the support of the Gulf State Senators, and it deserves our full support. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this bill which will increase our energy supplies and help stabilize prices for our consumers, farmers, and manufacturers.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two acts of selfless courage that exemplify the willingness of Iowans to accept and fulfill their Nation's call to duty. The actions of US Marine Corps Sgt. R.J. Mitchell and Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal have earned each of them the Navy Cross. Awarded for their actions during a November 2004 assault on Fallujah, the Navy Cross is among the highest awards for gallantry our Nation can bestow on those who serve. More than this, they have earned the respect of a nation and the thanks of its people by ensuring that the cause of freedom and its protection not only survives but thrives in the face of every challenge.

Sergeant Mitchell, who grew up near Carson, IA, was awarded the Navy Cross on July 28. Sergeant Major Kasal, originally from Afton, IA received his award May 1 as well as a promotion to sergeant major. During an assault on a house in Fallujah, both Iowans charged to the aid of fellow wounded marines, remaining in the line of fire and continuing to provide leadership to fellow marines until the last injured marine was safely evacuated. Over the course of the engagement, both sustained wounds from enemy fire and shrapnel but continued on in harm's way, saving the lives of several marines as a result of their selfless actions.

I extend my personal gratitude, that of all Iowans, and all Americans, to these brave marines. It is in their selfless acts of courage that the very meaning of honor can be found. The Navy Cross is more than an adornment, it symbolizes the respect and appreciation of the American people. Through these heroic acts in service to their country, Brad Kasal and R.J. Mitchell truly embodied the motto of Iowa, ``Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.''

Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act.

The Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act enables the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments for acute care hospital services.

Under Medicare, acute care hospitals are paid for inpatient services through the hospital inpatient prospective payment system, IPPS. Around 3,500 hospitals received payment through the

IPPS totaling approximately $100 billion in fiscal year 2004.

As you know, hospitals in the United States vary greatly in terms of size, geographic location, types of patients served and staffing. Since a ``one size fits all'' approach to paying hospitals would not fairly compensate hospitals for the inpatient services they provide to Medicare patients, payments under the IPPS are adjusted to take into account these differences.

CMS has been refining one such adjustment, as required by law, and has limited its application until it has been adequately developed. This significant adjustment, the area wage index, is intended to account for differences in prices for labor in different markets.

In order to ensure that the wage index accurately reflects the difference in labor costs among different areas and not a hospital's employment choices, an occupational mix adjustment is also applied to the wage index.

For example, a hospital choosing to employ predominantly registered nurses would have higher labor costs than a hospital employing--less- expensive--licensed practical nurses. Because a hospital's staffing practices are unrelated to area wages, its staff composition should not influence the area wage index.

CMS collected data in 2004 from hospitals for purposes of calculating the occupational mix adjustment; however, because of reasons including the agency's lack of confidence in the data, only 10 percent of the wage index was adjusted for occupational mix in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

Questions concerning the reliability of these data can be seen in my home State of Iowa. Since the State is largely rural, Iowa hospitals generally employ a less expensive mix of personnel. One would expect the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index to benefit these hospitals; however, the opposite effect has occurred. In fact, it is estimated that the occupational mix adjustment has adversely affected 8 of the 10 geographic locations in Iowa.

CMS originally proposed to continue this limited adjustment for occupational mix in fiscal year 2007, but a Federal appellate court ordered the agency to apply the occupational mix adjustment, based on data collected in 2006, to 100 percent of the wage index effective for fiscal year 2007.

CMS collected these data hurriedly, using only 3 months of data, and will not be able to post the final wage index information until after the fiscal year 2007 inpatient hospital rates are announced. Moreover, since the data collection instrument has changed from the last time CMS collected data, CMS will not have sufficient time to analyze fully the data and determine their accuracy.

Given the lack of opportunity to ensure data accuracy, the uncertainty of how the occupational mix adjustment will affect hospital payments, and the disruption that can occur in moving immediately from a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix to a 100-percent adjustment, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would limit application of the occupational mix to the current rate for a 2-year period.

This legislation would give CMS the opportunity to look at the data and act accordingly both to apply the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index appropriately and to avoid disruptions.

In the meantime, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would require CMS to evaluate the way in which they collect data for and calculate the occupational mix adjustment and present us with recommendations by January 1, 2008.

I would also like to point out that the changes required under this legislation would be budget neutral because the Social Security Act requires that aggregate payments under this adjustment not be greater or less than payments made without the adjustment.

Mr. President, adjusting inpatient hospital payments under Medicare can have significant effects on a hospital's financial health. These adjustments should therefore be adequately developed to ensure that payments are accurate and not fully implemented until they are ready.

In the case of the wage index adjustment, let's provide CMS the opportunity to get the job done right.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again my good friend and colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act.

The Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act enables the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments for acute care hospital services.

Under Medicare, acute care hospitals are paid for inpatient services through the hospital inpatient prospective payment system, IPPS. Around 3,500 hospitals received payment through the

IPPS totaling approximately $100 billion in fiscal year 2004.

As you know, hospitals in the United States vary greatly in terms of size, geographic location, types of patients served and staffing. Since a ``one size fits all'' approach to paying hospitals would not fairly compensate hospitals for the inpatient services they provide to Medicare patients, payments under the IPPS are adjusted to take into account these differences.

CMS has been refining one such adjustment, as required by law, and has limited its application until it has been adequately developed. This significant adjustment, the area wage index, is intended to account for differences in prices for labor in different markets.

In order to ensure that the wage index accurately reflects the difference in labor costs among different areas and not a hospital's employment choices, an occupational mix adjustment is also applied to the wage index.

For example, a hospital choosing to employ predominantly registered nurses would have higher labor costs than a hospital employing--less- expensive--licensed practical nurses. Because a hospital's staffing practices are unrelated to area wages, its staff composition should not influence the area wage index.

CMS collected data in 2004 from hospitals for purposes of calculating the occupational mix adjustment; however, because of reasons including the agency's lack of confidence in the data, only 10 percent of the wage index was adjusted for occupational mix in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

Questions concerning the reliability of these data can be seen in my home State of Iowa. Since the State is largely rural, Iowa hospitals generally employ a less expensive mix of personnel. One would expect the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index to benefit these hospitals; however, the opposite effect has occurred. In fact, it is estimated that the occupational mix adjustment has adversely affected 8 of the 10 geographic locations in Iowa.

CMS originally proposed to continue this limited adjustment for occupational mix in fiscal year 2007, but a Federal appellate court ordered the agency to apply the occupational mix adjustment, based on data collected in 2006, to 100 percent of the wage index effective for fiscal year 2007.

CMS collected these data hurriedly, using only 3 months of data, and will not be able to post the final wage index information until after the fiscal year 2007 inpatient hospital rates are announced. Moreover, since the data collection instrument has changed from the last time CMS collected data, CMS will not have sufficient time to analyze fully the data and determine their accuracy.

Given the lack of opportunity to ensure data accuracy, the uncertainty of how the occupational mix adjustment will affect hospital payments, and the disruption that can occur in moving immediately from a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix to a 100-percent adjustment, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would limit application of the occupational mix to the current rate for a 2-year period.

This legislation would give CMS the opportunity to look at the data and act accordingly both to apply the occupational mix adjustment to the wage index appropriately and to avoid disruptions.

In the meantime, the Medicare Wage Index Improvement Act would require CMS to evaluate the way in which they collect data for and calculate the occupational mix adjustment and present us with recommendations by January 1, 2008.

I would also like to point out that the changes required under this legislation would be budget neutral because the Social Security Act requires that aggregate payments under this adjustment not be greater or less than payments made without the adjustment.

Mr. President, adjusting inpatient hospital payments under Medicare can have significant effects on a hospital's financial health. These adjustments should therefore be adequately developed to ensure that payments are accurate and not fully implemented until they are ready.

In the case of the wage index adjustment, let's provide CMS the opportunity to get the job done right.

Mr. President, recent events in the Middle East have led to the evacuation of thousands of U.S. citizens from Lebanon. This evacuation is being conducted by the U.S. State Department.

However, the Department of Health and Human Services, or more specifically, the Administration for Children and Families, ACF, is responsible for assisting U.S. citizens upon their return to the United States.

Over the past several days, ACF has established repatriation facilities at the Baltimore/Washington airport, the Philadelphia airport, and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. More than 5,000 Americans have been offered assistance at these facilities in recent days. Thousands more are expected within the week.

These repatriation facilities are staffed by Federal and State employees who provide assistance with travel, lodging, and access to medical facilities, as necessary. These employees are doing a tremendous job assisting all of the evacuees.

Unfortunately, under current law, this critical assistance is subject to a statutory cap of $1 million dollars. Given the expected number of evacuees, the statutory cap could be reached at any moment. Unless Congress acts quickly to raise the cap, the ongoing repatriation efforts will be suspended. We must not allow that to happen.

The legislation I have offered today, along with my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, will raise the cap to $6 million through the end of this fiscal year. This increase is expected to fully cover the anticipated costs of the evacuation this year, as well as provide for the continued operation of the repatriation program next year.

In addition to temporarily raising the cap, this legislation would provide the States with the option to use the National Directory of New Hires to verify eligibility under the Food Stamp Program. This language is similar to the provisions in current law now being used to verify eligibility for the SSI Program and to collect delinquent child support payments.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the utilization of this option in the Food Stamp Program would save roughly $1 million a year, thus offsetting the cost of raising the cap.

In contrast to the legislation passed by the House yesterday, this legislation does not sunset the repatriation program. The repatriation program has been in operation, in one form or another, since the 1930s. There is no reason to believe this program should be abolished. Thus, the sunset provision contained in the House bill is merely a gimmick to create the appearance that the bill is paid for when in fact it is not.

On another matter, the House language includes a requirement for an IG report on the repatriation program. However, it does not appear such a report is necessary.

According to ACF, under the emergency repatriation program each State has an approved plan which they implement when needed. They are allowed to assume costs for all of the activities contained in their approved plan. The States then submit a detailed explanation of how the funds were spent, along with supporting documentation.

Finally, it should be noted that the language in the House bill was intended to lift the million-dollar cap for the current fiscal year. But it is not entirely clear it accomplishes that goal. Under current law, the cap is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2003. Under the House-passed language, the cap is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2006. Since the current fiscal year occurs after 2003 but before 2006, that begs the question-- what is the cap for this year? The answer to this question should not be ambiguous. The Senate language clearly states the cap for the current fiscal year is $6 million.

Given all of these concerns, I urge my colleagues to reject the House language and support the Senate alternative. The Senate alternative will maintain the critical assistance now being provided to evacuees, while at the same time offsetting the cost of this assistance in a reasonable and responsible manner.

I urge its adoption.

Madam President, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 86, which will renew the import ban we first imposed on Burma in 2003.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was our response to the reprehensible attack on the National League for Democracy which occurred on May 30, 2003, and the arrest of many NLD officials, including their leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

I worked with my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Baucus, to develop and pass that legislation. We authorized a ban on imports from Burma for 3 years, subject to annual renewal by Congress.

Well, the 3 years are about to end, and unfortunately the situation in

Burma has not improved. The latest report from the State Department notes the continuation of killings and rape, use of forced labor, forced conscription, arrests and disappearances of political activists, and other abuses by the ruling military junta. And on May 23, 2006, the ruling junta extended for another year the unjustified house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. To renew trade with Burma now would send exactly the wrong signal. We need to renew the import ban as a visible demonstration to the ruling junta that their actions are unacceptable and that they must change their ways.

We also need to encourage other nations to take strong action. The European Union has imposed some sanctions. Canada, Australia, Japan, and Norway also have some restrictions in place. I think they should each join us in doing more. Other nations should be acting as well, in particular, China. I urge the administration to continue engaging our trading partners to join us in strengthening sanctions against the ruling military junta. We need to work together in order to spur meaningful democratic reform in Burma.

For these reasons, I support authorizing the import ban for another 3 years, and I support the outright renewal of the import ban for another year. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of H.J. Res. 86 and getting it to the President's desk for his signature as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Yvonne R. Goodman. Funeral services were held for her this morning. Yvonne served on my Washington, DC, staff in the Senate and in the House of Representatives for a total of 28 years, and she worked for my predecessor in the House of Representatives, Congressman H.R. Gross, for 25 years. She began helping me the first day I arrived on Capitol Hill and continued until she retired in 2002. In total, Yvonne served the people of Iowa for a remarkable 53 years. There is no doubt that Iowans benefited from her loyalty to their representatives in the Congress and her standard of excellence in her work. I was very fortunate to have her on my staff. Yvonne was from Osage, IA. She was a special person and a valuable and trusted employee. She made a great contribution with her selfless and dedicated public service. Her husband Jim is also a friend. He, too, worked in government and shared Yvonne's commitment to the people's business. Yvonne and Jim were an integral part of my office family for 28 years. They touched the lives of so many fellow staffers with their caring ways. They were gardeners who loved to share their beautiful flowers and plants. My wife Barbara joins me today in extending our sympathy to Jim and saluting the life and many good deeds of his beloved Yvonne.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Let me first commend everyone who has been involved with getting this bill to where it is today, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate, Chairman Specter. Chairman Specter has attempted to ensure that everyone involved in this process received the opportunity to explore the issues about which they had further questions, while still moving the bill through expeditiously. Thanks to all these efforts, we will see final passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization today, nearly a year ahead of the expiration of any of the temporary provisions.

I have long been a supporter of the Voting Rights Act. I had the opportunity to work with Senators Dole and Kennedy and others in 1982 to continue the VRA's vital protections, to ensure that all Americans truly have the right to vote.

As I explained during the reauthorization of the VRA in 1982, the right to vote is fundamental. Only through voting can we guarantee preservation of all our other rights. The right to vote is the very cornerstone of democracy and merits the highest protection of law.

People of all races have been guaranteed the right to vote since passage of the 15th amendment in 1870. For far too long, though, this was a right only in theory. Many minorities were discriminated against in the days before the Voting Rights Act was introduced. Since this Act was passed, we have seen the voting proportions of these populations increase dramatically. The Voting Rights Act has had very significant success in fighting racial discrimination, probably more than anything else that Congress has done since the adoption of the Civil War amendments.

Next year, important provisions of the Voting Rights Act will expire. The right of every American to have a voice and vote is the essence of America's strength and greatness. As was the case in 1982, conditions have improved since the original Voting Rights Act was passed. It is our duty as the ultimate custodians of the public trust, however, to ensure that we never return to a world in which some of our citizens do not truly have the right to vote.

For this reason, I stand with Chairman Specter as an original cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. Many people, including the bill's authors, members of the Judiciary Committees in both Houses, and thousands of civil rights activists, have worked incredibly hard to see this reauthorization become a reality.

I will repeat what I said on this floor 15 years ago: It is our duty to guarantee that all citizens have the same opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. All of us here today recognize that it is our duty, as elected representatives of the people, as guardians of democracy, to protect the right to vote. I remain confident, as I was in 1982, that the Voting Rights Act is a key tool--perhaps the key tool--in eradicating any remaining vestiges of racial discrimination.

I support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and encourage my colleagues to do the same. As it was in 1965 and in 1982 and for all the other extensions along the way, this vote today is among the most important civil rights votes on the floor of this body. We have the opportunity today to show that we are, indeed, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please join me in voting aye.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and am even prouder that we have been able to work across party lines and in both Houses to come up with a bill that we all can support and that will genuinely help protect our children from sexual predators.

My commendations and heartfelt sympathy go out to John and Reve Walsh, Mark Lunsford, and all the other parents and loved ones of children who were taken so violently from those who loved them so dearly. Without the tireless efforts of these folks, this bill might not be on the floor here today, as we near the 25-year mark of the disappearance and murder of Adam Walsh.

The urgency of passing this legislation is clear. The murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sara Lunde, Tiffany Souers, and Jetseta Gage, who was from my home State of Iowa, have been thoroughly covered in the news in recent times. Each of these murders was committed by a repeat sex offender. These cases should open our eyes to the necessity of passing a bill that will protect children from monsters who commit these crimes and ensure that those who do commit the crimes will receive tougher penalties.

As I mentioned, Jetseta Marrie Gage was from my home State of Iowa. I would like to take a moment to talk about the beautiful 10-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered last year.

On March 24, 2005, Jetseta went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, even before a body had been found, law enforcement officials took Roger Bentley into custody.

Bentley had been previously convicted for committing lascivious acts with a minor. Unfortunately, this man only served a little over 1 year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days later, due to a tip received by a woman responding to the Amber Alert, Jetseta's body was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. She had been sexually molested and suffocated with a plastic bag. I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks my heart to hear about cases like this, but it is even more disheartening when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing and that hers is just one tragic story in a long list of horrific crimes committed every year.

Child sex offenders are the most heinous of all criminals. I can honestly tell you that I would just as soon lock up all the child molesters and child pornography makers and murderers in this country and throw away the key. As it should all of us, the thought of what these predators do to our innocent children literally makes me sick to my stomach. The thought that we might not do what we could to deter them but also to prevent the same people from committing the same crimes against other children is unacceptable. According to a study funded by the Department of Justice, 5.3 percent of sex offenders were rearrested within 3 years following their release for another sex crime. Also, compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Even more troubling, according to several federally funded studies, child molesters have an even higher rate of rearrest than rapists.

Three years ago, we passed the PROTECT Act, a bill I worked on with my colleagues to provide the judiciary with the necessary tools to ensure that our children and grandchildren grow up in a safe community, free from child predators. This bill complements the process we started with the PROTECT Act, and adds much needed additional protections for children and for our communities.

The bill before us today includes parts of the Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act, a bill that I introduced last year to strengthen penalties for criminals who commit sex offenses against children. It ensures that those who commit heinous crimes against our children are appropriately punished and that anyone thinking of committing similar crimes will think twice about the repercussions. The bill increases penalties for sexual offenses against children, including sexual abuse, murder, kidnapping, sex trafficking, and various activities relating to the production and dissemination of child pornography.

This bill goes far beyond these penalty increases, however. It establishes sex offender registration and notification requirements, essential to aid parents in monitoring their children's environments. It strengthens child pornography prevention laws and sets up grants, studies, and other programs for the safety of children and communities. It delves into Internet crimes, an area that is becoming increasingly important in light of the dangers posed to children and the lack of knowledge on the part of parents, which hampers their ability to protect their children. My good friend from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, introduced the bill this section is based on and which I cosponsored.

As the elected representatives of the American people, our foremost duty is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Child rapes and murders are now being reported on our news programs on a regular basis. We have the power to prevent so many of these crimes by creating stronger deterrents and letting parents know where these sex offenders lurk after they are released. When crimes are committed, the least we can do is ensure that the rapists and murderers won't get the opportunity to hurt another child.

It is a tragedy that it took so many stories like those of Adam Walsh, Jetseta Gage, and Jessica Lunsford for a law of this nature to be proposed. I strongly believe that a vote for this bill can save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizenry. We have an obligation as adults to protect our youth. We have an obligation as parents to protect our children. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing just that by voting in favor of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss the issue of the Water Resources Development Act and particularly that part of the act that deals with the improvement of transportation on the Mississippi River because that improvement is very essential not only to the economy of Iowa but to the economy of the whole Midwest, and in turn that relates to the economy of the United States.

Most importantly, it affects the economy--meaning the economic competitiveness of our industry and agriculture, and primarily agriculture with competition around the world, and particularly that, as I see it, of Brazil. Brazil is becoming very much a competitor with the Midwest of the United States in the production of a lot of grains, particularly soybeans.

I owe a thank you, particularly to Senators Bond and Inhofe, for their strong leadership in moving this legislation forward.

This used to happen every 2 years, a bill called the Water Resources Development Act. But we have not dealt with this issue since the year 2000. This bill is not only long overdue, but it is a very important bill. Not only does the bill which is before us include many updates in existing authorized projects, but it also authorizes new projects throughout the country.

Several examples of these much-needed projects beyond the ones I am going to emphasize are the coastal wetland restorations, but the one I want to emphasize the improvement of is the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Coastal wetland restoration will help protect our inland waterways. We think, maybe too often, of that as being an environmental issue, but it is also about protecting our inland waterways, making sure that there is a multiple use of the rivers, recreation, food, as well as commerce.

In the process of the wetland restoration protecting our offshore energy supply, we provide much-needed flood protection in the gulf coast region. But for my State and the Midwest generally, the Upper Mississippi and Illinois River navigation and ecosystem investments are also very vital because of the multipurpose use of the river. Of course, Iowa is bounded on the east side by the Mississippi River for the entire north and west distance of our State. And Iowa, as well as the Nation, relies on the river to move both goods that are domestically oriented and distributed as well as goods that are internationally distributed.

The United States enjoys a comparative advantage in corn production worldwide. My State is also the No. 1 producer of corn, and usually we are also the No. 1 producer of soybeans.

In regard to corn production, the per-ton cost of transporting corn in the United States is lower than any other country. But our country must not allow its transportation infrastructure to continue to deteriorate. Quite frankly, that is what this legislation is all about. Because of deterioration, it needs to be enhanced, it needs to be improved, and it needs to be kept up to date. Our international competitors are making major investments in their transportation systems.

In Brazil, surface transportation--meaning railroads and highways, primarily highways--is very much inferior to ours. In March, I took a trip to Brazil. I can tell you that when we were out in the countryside, what we would call rural Brazil, we ran into more potholes than you could count, something that farmers of Iowa would not anticipate or tolerate from our local officials. You wonder how local officials get reelected because they are not going to be reelected because of filling potholes. But Brazil, on the other hand, as far as their river transportation, brings into question the competitive advantage the United States might have that we could be losing. Brazil has made significant investments in its river infrastructure. They do not have to have locks and dams, such as we do on the Mississippi, in the case of the Amazon. I saw facilities on my trip to Brazil on the Amazon that we could be very jealous of, the opportunity to bring commercial seagoing ships up the Amazon to load in Brazil on the Amazon and coming in this far with very major terminals for loading primarily soybeans, but also they can go up the river as well.

There is a new facility being built at this point. I believe these ships go even further up. But at least I wanted to be sure of here and here that it is possible to load those ships at that point. They don't have to use barges as we do from Iowa to New Orleans to load. This would be the equivalent of our being able to take oceangoing ships up to Memphis to load for soybeans.

You can understand then that we have this lock and dam situation that makes it possible for us to use the Mississippi River for major transportation. Keeping that up to date is very important if we are going to be economically competitive with how they can move their agricultural products--primarily soybeans--out of Brazil into the world trade.

What they don't have that we have is very good roads, although they are improving them. They don't have the railroad system we have in the United States that makes it possible for us to get our grain very easily to the Mississippi River or using railroads to get it down to the gulf. But they are working on that. Right now we are competitive because they do not have that land infrastructure we have. When they get that, we will have a hard time competing.

That brings up the point of this legislation and getting it passed, to make sure our Mississippi infrastructure is up to date. We must invest in major improvements in all of our transportation infrastructure. If we don't make these investments in our roads, our rails and water, the U.S. agricultural industry and labor will pay the price.

Last year we did a lot to help with surface transportation, primarily referred to as the highway bill, although maybe not entirely highways. We provided $295 billion for road, transit, and rail improvements in that bill we passed last year. These funds will help facilitate the movement of our goods. The surface transportation bill will help alleviate congestion so our trucks can move more efficiently.

It also provides additional loan authority and tax credit to help railroads invest in much-needed capital improvements and to help meet the large demands for their services.

According to the Congressional Research Service, last year U.S. exports of goods and services totaled $1.275 trillion compared to $1.115 trillion in 2004 and $1.023 trillion in the year 2003.

You can see very much an enhancement in value of our exports from the United States according to the Congressional Research Service. Of course, our consumers and our manufacturers, and to some extent food supply, rely upon importing goods into the United States. But whether it is exports or imports, whether it is consumers or input into manufacturing and agriculture, many of these goods travel on our inland waterways.

Again, emphasizing the need to get this legislation passed, because it is also forecast to beat our exports and imports are going to continue to grow in the future, we must be able to efficiently and economically move these goods.

When I get more parochial in my economic observance of the need of this legislation, it is because nearly two-thirds of all grain as well as soybean exports are moved through the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. According to one study, unless the Army Corps of Engineers modernizes, which means Congress giving them the ability to do it, unless we modernize the lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi and the Illinois Rivers, the cost of transporting just one commodity, corn, to the export market would rise by 17 cents per bushel.

As a result, corn and soybean exports would decline by 68 million and 10 million bushels per year, respectively, and the decline in corn and soybean exports would reduce farm income by $246 million. This highlights how important barge transportation is to the farmers but in turn to the economy generally.

In addition, there are many environmental benefits to river transportation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, towboats might have 35 to 60 percent fewer pollutants than either train locomotives or our big semitrucks in transporting anything, but particularly in regard to what I am talking about, the necessity of moving grain. A color chart used by the Senator from Missouri shows the same thing. I have a black-and-white chart. The information is the same, but it is cheaper to make white charts than it is colored charts.

It shows one barge can move what 15 jumbo hopper cars of railroads can move or what 58 large semis can move. Not only is that an environmental issue, that is an issue of economy of moving a product. Most importantly, when you are waiting for a long train at a crossing, think in terms of fewer hopper cars because of what one barge can move. Of all of the trucks you meet on the interstate or the two-lane highways of the Midwest, think how many more there would be if we did not have transportation to the gulf by barge. If you have 15 of these barges being pushed by one motor, you would have 2.25 miles of train, 180 cars or, in this case, 870 large semis.

I hope everyone can see that moving a lot of merchandise to export on the Mississippi River is taking an awful lot of pressure off the highways, an awful lot of pressure off of the railroads. It is environmentally sound in the process.

The Army Corps of Engineers data suggests that the Nation currently saves $100 to $300 million in air pollution abatement when moving bulk commodities by barge through the Mississippi River system. In these times of high fuel prices and with the need to conserve energy, one gallon of fuel in a towboat can carry one ton of freight 2.5 times further than rail and nine times further than trucks.

Quoting the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimate, shifting from barge to rail results in fuel usage emissions and probable accident increases by the following percentages: 331-percent fuel usage; 470 percent less emissions; and 290 percent less probable accidents. Shifting traffic from barge to trucks increases fuel use 826 percent, emissions 709 percent, and probable accidents by 5.967 percent. In addition, another 1,333 heavy trucks would be added to our already congested roads.

For these above reasons, we have this legislation before the Senate. Several of my Senate colleagues for many years have been seeking authorization for this lock and dam modernization as well as enhanced environmental restoration of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. To get that done, we have to get this bill to the President for his signature.

I am very pleased the Committee on Environment and Public Works included these important initiatives in this Water Resources Development Act and that a truly bipartisan group of Senators is advocating for this important modernization. If anyone believes it is always Republicans attacking Democrats and Democrats attacking Republicans, this is an ideal initiative that shows how widespread bipartisan support and cooperation can be in this Senate when there is a national emergency. That national emergency is environmental, the national emergency is for our economy to be competitive, the national emergency is safety on our highways, to relieve glut on our railroads. It is all around.

This is a bipartisan effort to cooperate for the good of this Nation because this lock-and-dam system of the Upper Mississippi River was built in the late 1930s, I suppose over a period of a few decades. But many lock chambers are only 600 feet long and cannot accommodate the barges we are talking about used in the modern day to get things into the international market. These structures require a modernization because there is a tow configuration that needs a double lock to pass. This adds to mounting delay time when we do not have the modernization. It amounts to increased costs to the shippers, increased harm to our environment with higher emissions and higher sediment suspensions in the river channel, the loss of jobs when we are not competitive, and lower wages when we are not competitive.

Increased traffic levels without these improvements will result in gross farm revenue loss of over $105 million per year. This does not take into account the huge cost of increased highway and rail transportation.

We realize the authorization of the lock-and-dam improvements is a first step in a lengthy process, but it is a necessary step and one that a bipartisan group of Senators, an increasing number of Senators in a bipartisan way, has been working on for a few years.

It is an important and necessary project for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this balanced legislation, not to vote for any amendments that are going to dilute it or harm it in any way. When we get this number of Senators working together in a bipartisan fashion, this ought to be a test of something that is needed, a test of something that is good, something to move forward on. It is balanced legislation and, of course, it is good for the country.

Mr. President, today, as everybody is doing, I want to discuss the three stem-cell-research-related bills before the Senate. I have been in the Senate for 26 years now. Every day, we make decisions that impact Americans. It becomes difficult,

however, when we debate bills that involve the lives of women and families, especially those who are sick and dying. We must be cognizant of their plights, but we cannot forget about those who don't have a voice.

Tomorrow, I will vote in favor of those who are not yet brought into this world. I will vote for those who don't have a chance to speak against legislation that doesn't give them a chance at life.

First, I intend to support S. 3504, the ban on fetus farming. This bill states that a person cannot solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of fetal tissue or an embryo if the pregnancy was initiated to provide such material. This bill will reduce the likelihood that women will be used solely for their production of embryos. We have to draw the line, and we have to prevent the corruption that could occur.

Second, I intend to support a bill numbered S. 2754, which directs the National Institutes of Health to fund alternative techniques for stem cell research. It will allow researchers to use different techniques to derive pluripotent stem cells without destroying human life. This research could be done under current law, but a vote in support of this bill will send a signal to the NIH that we want to see even more of this research.

Finally, I will oppose H.R. 810 because it would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Some of my colleagues will characterize the bill, H.R. 810, as a lifesaving opportunity for many people with diseases. The focus will be on promises, hopes, and dreams. This focus disregards that this bill will allow researchers to use and abuse embryos. And there are enormous moral and ethical consequences associated with that research.

You cannot mess with the facts. An embryo is life. No Senator can disagree with that assertion. Once you realize that fact--that an embryo is life--you have to realize that this bill takes life and plays with it.

In addition, this bill doesn't prohibit cloning. In fact, it will make cloning even more attractive. Why would we want to go down this road of unethical research when we have a method that already works?

We all know that adult stem cell research has proven effective. We are investing the taxpayers' money in research that benefits the American people. We in Congress have to realize that there is a difference between hope and hype. I, for one, will not be misled.

Adult stem cells have already proven effective for over 72 treatments. I will not list them all, but some of them relate to adult stem cells being used to treat brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and Parkinson's disease. Peripheral blood stem cells have treated testicular cancer, lymphoma, and breast cancer. Cord blood stem cells have treated leukemia. Olfactory stem cells from the nose can develop into heart cells, liver cells, kidney cells, muscle cells, brain cells, and nerve cells. Bone marrow stem cells and stem cells from fat have the ability to differentiate and form other body tissues.

I wish I could list the advances with embryonic stem cell research, but I cannot; there are none. There are no treatments for human patients. So there is no evidence on which to argue that this research should be expanded with public resources.

I have a story about a person that I have known for 44 years, David Foege. I have known him since he was a page at the Iowa State Legislature back in 1962. He is originally from Waverly, IA, so even though he lives in Florida, I still consider him a constituent. There is evidence, then, through Dave Foege that we should continue supporting adult stem cell research.

Just 2 weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with David, who is now 61 years old and living in Florida. This is the story he told to me. David was given a life sentence because of heart failure. Three years ago, David was told that he had little chance of surviving. His heart was losing all function and there was little that doctors could do. David then turned to stem cell therapy. He found doctors in Bangkok that would harvest his own stem cells and then inject them back into his own heart. His own stem cells--his adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells--cured him. His heart function has improved by 70 percent. David is alive and well, playing golf, and currently taking a cruise in Belize. Without adult stem cell therapy, David would not be here.

Embryonic stem cell research, on the contrary, has not yielded this kind of success that we have from adult stem cells. It makes sense to direct public resources to what works. Prioritizing resources: It makes sense for public resources to help those with heart disease, the No. 1 killer in the United States. It makes sense to encourage research that will work for those with Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. Why would we want to desert patients in the United States by spending dollars on research that has not been proven?

I will oppose H.R. 810 not only because of the ethical consequences but because it doesn't prioritize our use of fiscal resources.

Let's be clear. There is no current policy in place that bans embryonic stem cell research. Everybody knows that we are doing some through the Federal Government because, being perfectly legal in the United States, President Bush, in 2001, allowed taxpayer dollars to be used for that research. This debate in the Senate today and tomorrow is not whether we want to ban or allow research, it is whether we want to spend our dollars on embryo creation and destruction.

Today, the Congress appropriates nearly $30 billion for medical research through the National Institutes of Health. Every year, hundreds of advocates come to my office to say that $30 billion is not enough. They say these funds are important to continue research and trials that are already started. So what would happen to those arguments if there was a higher priority placed through passage of H.R. 810? Will we have to double the budget again for NIH like we did between 1998 and 2003? I don't think that is possible given that was already done starting in the year 1998. So it makes me wonder whether we are prioritizing the use of Federal research dollars through the National Institutes of Health the way we should.

We don't have an infinite amount of Federal funding. We cannot pretend there is enough money to go around. We do have to prioritize. So I urge my colleagues to realize that Congress can only disburse so many funds. We can only fix so many problems. Therefore, we need to think rationally. We need to make tough choices. One of those tough choices might be to pursue what is proven to work, which is greater use of adult stem cells. The right choice, then, is to invest in what works. Let's keep the ball rolling with research that has been proven.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am introducing a bill that will extend whistleblower protections currently available to certain executive branch employees to legislative branch employees.

This bill is long overdue. The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill.

I have fought for whistleblowers for many years. Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Government agencies too often want to cover up their mistakes. Without insiders being brave enough to uncover these violations or waste, the American taxpayer would continue to pay for them. These people should not be punished for bringing the misdeeds to light.

Whistleblowers in the executive branch have helped me do my job of oversight. We have done a good job to make sure that whistleblowers in the executive branch are protected. It is simply not fair, nor is it good governance for Congress to enact whistleblower protections on the other branches of Government without giving its own employees the same consideration. This bill merely extends those same protections that other Government employees enjoy to Congress's own employees.

I fully back hard-working Government employees who serve to protect our country, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Congress needs to make sure that its own employees can speak up without retaliation when they blow the whistle on fraud, waste, or abuse.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am introducing a bill that will extend whistleblower protections currently available to certain executive branch employees to legislative branch employees.

This bill is long overdue. The Office of Compliance has called for these changes on numerous occasions in recent years, and they are very supportive of this bill.

I have fought for whistleblowers for many years. Whistleblowers are the key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. Government agencies too often want to cover up their mistakes. Without insiders being brave enough to uncover these violations or waste, the American taxpayer would continue to pay for them. These people should not be punished for bringing the misdeeds to light.

Whistleblowers in the executive branch have helped me do my job of oversight. We have done a good job to make sure that whistleblowers in the executive branch are protected. It is simply not fair, nor is it good governance for Congress to enact whistleblower protections on the other branches of Government without giving its own employees the same consideration. This bill merely extends those same protections that other Government employees enjoy to Congress's own employees.

I fully back hard-working Government employees who serve to protect our country, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Congress needs to make sure that its own employees can speak up without retaliation when they blow the whistle on fraud, waste, or abuse.

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

Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to note my vote for the amendment offered to H.R. 5441 by Senator Vitter. Senator Vitter's amendment would prohibit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection from using funds to prevent individuals from importing a prescription drug from Canada that complies with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDCA.

The strong support demonstrated today for Senator Vitter's amendment reemphasizes the importance of the issue of allowing Americans to import prescription drugs.

I have long advocated allowing American consumers access to safe drugs from other countries. In 2000, 2002 and 2003 I supported amendments permitting reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. In 2004, Senator Kennedy and I offered bipartisan legislation to authorize reimportation. And, last year, I introduced a reimportation bill with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Dorgan and others. Our bill, S. 334, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, permits the importation of prescription drugs and includes very important safeguards to help ensure that those drugs are safe and obtained from legitimate pharmacies. I look forward to continuing to pursue Senate passage of our comprehensive,

bipartisan bill. Allowing importation will increase competition and keep the domestic pharmaceutical industry more responsive to consumers.

Senate approval of the Vitter amendment represents another development in an ongoing effort to help reduce the cost of life-saving drugs for American consumers. We need to do more to foster competition by allowing imported medicine and to make sure that those prescription drugs are safe. S.334 should be the next step on this issue.