Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McConnell-Domenici amendment because it does what we need to do to address this real crisis in our country--crippling energy prices, rising energy prices that hit the pocketbook of every Louisiana family I represent and every American family, that is causing grave concern about our economic future.

I am afraid what we heard from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico just now is more of the same excuses we have heard for a couple of years now: why we can't do this, can't do that, and can't act in general. What has that inaction, that paralysis, those excuses all led to? I will tell you what it has led to. It has led to soaring energy prices. In January 2007, when this Democratic Congress took office, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.33 at the pump. Today, it is $3.72--a 60-percent increase. That is what those excuses, that is what that inaction has led to.

We need to do a number of things across the board on the demand side and on the supply side. This Domenici-McConnell amendment includes all of those. Does it include every one of them? No. No single proposal is ever going to include every good idea out there that we probably need to act on, but it includes a lot on which we need to act.

I want to focus on one part of the amendment in particular of which I am very supportive, and that is opening more of our Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and production.

I believe one of the most important things in energy policy that we have done since the short time I have been in the Senate is to open new parts of the Gulf of Mexico with revenue sharing. This provision in the Domenici-McConnell amendment will expand on that precedent. It would say we can open areas of the Atlantic and the Pacific, but with two very important caveats, both of which are great policy. First of all, the host State, the State off which the activity would occur, has to want the activity, has to agree to it. The Governor has to say: Yes, we want this activity off our waters. And secondly, that host State in return would get significant revenue sharing, exactly the same revenue sharing we passed a few years ago, 37.5 percent to go to the host State to meet its environmental or educational or highway or other needs. That is sound policy. We passed that policy for new areas of the gulf that were opening. We need to expand on that policy to dramatically increase our domestic energy production, and we can do that safely and in an environmentally friendly way.

There is much the McConnell-Domenici amendment does that is needed as well, but I wanted to highlight that point because it is so absolutely crucial and important. It builds on good policy we set a few years ago. It expands on that precedent, and I believe expanding on that precedent can significantly increase our domestic energy resources in this country.

Do we need to do other things? Absolutely. Do we need to act on the demand side further? Absolutely. This isn't brain surgery. Economics 101 tells us that price has to do with two lines on a graph: the demand line and the supply line. We need to mitigate, bring down demand, and we need to increase supply. I am for any reasonable policy that does those two things. On the demand side, conservation, greater efficiency, new sources and forms of energy--absolutely.

I am going to agree with Senator Dorgan and vote for his amendment regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Like Senator Domenici, I have changed my mind on that issue because the increases in price at the pump have gotten so dramatic and so outrageous. So that can mitigate demand increases as well.

But as we make all of those efforts on the demand side--and we need to do more--we cannot constantly ignore the supply side, particularly the domestic supply side. That is exactly what this Congress has done for the last 2 years. Mr. President, $2.33 price at the pump then; $3.72 price at the pump today. Let's act, and let's act now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation and help on this bill. As they know, this issue and this bill is an enormous concern for all of us in coastal regions. In particular, my colleague from Louisiana and myself and the two distinguished Senators from Mississippi have been very focused on this bill and on several amendments, also, that we believe are absolutely critical to improve it as we reauthorize this necessary program.

As we have told the chairman and the ranking member in discussions over many weeks, we have no intention to obstruct and filibuster and stand in the way of reauthorizing this important program. But we do have to have

the ability to have a fair debate and a set of votes on crucial issues, amendments that are important to us.

In that spirit, in that vein, we took all of our amendment ideas and narrowed them down dramatically to a universe of about six or seven amendments between the four Senators from Louisiana and Mississippi. We have had productive discussions in that regard with the chairman and the ranking member. I wanted to engage in this discussion to receive assurances that the chairman and ranking member will do everything possible to ensure that our narrowed-down universe of crucial amendments gets quick, efficient but fair consideration on the Senate floor and a vote.

On behalf of my colleague from Louisiana, my two colleagues from Mississippi, and myself, I thank the Senator and the ranking member again for their cooperation. We look forward to that very efficient but full and fair debate and vote on those amendments that are important to us. I will very quickly confer with the rest of them and make sure they do not have any outstanding issues, so we can move forward and get going.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support, with so many of my colleagues, of the Wicker amendment. As Senator Martinez has talked about Florida, Senator Wicker has talked so eloquently about Mississippi, so, too, in Louisiana it is an absolute imperative that we address the wind liability coverage issue in this larger debate.

The single greatest obstacle to recovery in both of our States hit by Katrina and Rita is insurance. For so many of my constituents, insurance on the wind liability side is unavailable or, if it is available, completely, absolutely unaffordable. This Wicker amendment will give folks a new option. It won't mandate it, it won't push them into that program, but it will give them an option. Most importantly, it will give them an option without increasing any burden or risk to the taxpayer.

I want to repeat something that has been said, but it is vitally important for everyone to understand before we vote; that is, the CBO has made perfectly clear this amendment does not make the bill more expensive. It does not make the program more expensive. It does not cost the taxpayer for a very simple reason: There is a mandate in the language that premiums be set in an actuarially sound way to cover the risk.

I strongly support the Wicker amendment.

Amendment No. 4722 to Amendment No. 4707

Having said that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 4722.

Mr. President, this amendment is basic and straightforward. This amendment would increase the coverage limits for flood policies under the National Flood Insurance Program. Why do we need to do that? For a very basic reason. Those dollar limits have not been changed in 14 years. They haven't been changed at all, adjusted for inflation or anything else, since 1994. So it is way past overdue to update these coverage limits in a reasonable way. This Vitter amendment 4722 would do just that. But, in fact, it wouldn't even fully take into account inflation since 1994. It would fall a little short of that. We chose the increases because my increases in amendment 4722 are exactly what the House of Representatives has already passed, merely updating those limits to take into account most but not even all of inflation since they were last set in 1994.

I share with the chairman and ranking member the goal of making this program more fiscally sound, more actuarially sound. But we will completely frustrate that goal if we have a program with extremely low coverage limits and people can't buy the coverage they need. What will happen if we allow that? More and more storms

will hit, and people who have flood insurance coverage will not have nearly enough coverage, so there will be pressure--every event, every storm--to come to Congress for emergency measures above and beyond the flood insurance program. That isn't a path to fiscal soundness. A path to fiscal soundness must include some reasonable updating of coverage limits. This amendment would do that.

Finally, this was included in the House version of the bill. It did pass the House overwhelmingly. In the context of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office said it did not add to the cost of the bill in any way because increased premiums go along, of course, with increased coverage limits. The CBO said, in light of those increased premium payments, which go along with increasing coverage limits, there isn't an addition to the cost of the bill. It is a net wash in terms of the cost to the taxpayer and to the bill.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look hard at this amendment. It is a sound, modest amendment to update the program. It is perfectly consistent with fiscal soundness. I would hope we can get a strong resounding vote in favor of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in response, I respect very much the views of the ranking member. But, No. 1, at least with regard to the House bill on which I have seen the CBO analysis, the CBO said it did not add to the cost of the bill because higher premiums obviously come with a higher coverage limit, if folks choose to buy that.

Secondly, if we have coverage limits which are way too low and a big event hits, that is going to shove us in a direction away from fiscal soundness because it will make extraordinary emergency measures necessary in response to that event by this Congress, rather than having an insurance system capable of covering the loss.

Amendment No. 4723 to Amendment No. 4707

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendment No. 4723.

Mr. President, in the interest of moving this bill along and moving through as many issues as possible efficiently, I will explain the amendment briefly.

This amendment deals with those properties which have an increased risk because of the issuance of new flood maps. Every time there is an event, of course, whether it is a small event or a huge one, such as Katrina and Rita, there are new flood maps developed over time by FEMA. If a property is a greater risk under those new flood maps, under this underlying bill premiums would go up. I have no objection to that. They should go up. But I do think we need to temper that with a reasonable time period over which to spread out that increase. This underlying bill says that increase would happen all in 2 years. My amendment would change that to mirror the provision in the House bill and would spread that increase over 5 years instead of 2.

This is a reasonable, modest measure to make this movement toward fiscal responsibility and actuarial soundness reasonable and manageable by the premium payer. Some of these changes, particularly after an event such as Katrina or Rita, can be quite dramatic. To say that all of that change, all of that premium increase happens over 2 years is going to be a huge, whopping bill that is going to stop a lot of folks from being able to be insured over time.

I think this change to have that phased in over 5 years is reasonable. It does not lose sight of the goal of fiscal soundness and actuarial soundness, but it is a reasonable accommodation to folks who are in a very different circumstance because of a brandnew flood map.

With that, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the measure, and I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and modest. It simply updates the coverage limits available for a flood policy which have not been updated at all since 1994. It does not even take into account all inflation since then, just most inflation. It is what the House did. And under the CBO study of the House bill, the CBO said it does not increase the cost of the bill because people will obviously pay significantly higher premiums for the higher limits.

This is a very modest updating of the limits. I ask for the support of my colleagues.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, reclaiming the remainder of my time, again I think it is very important to note the CBO analysis, with regard to this issue in the House bill, said it does not cost any more. It does not get in the way of actuarial soundness at all. This is only updating the limits for less than inflation since 1994.

Mr. President, periodically new flood maps are issued by FEMA. When a new flood map comes out, some properties that used to not be in a flood zone may now be in a flood zone, or move from a lesser to a more severe part of a flood zone.

This amendment would simply say we are going to charge higher premiums, absolutely, but we will transition that over 5 years instead of the 2 years in the bill. The 5 years is the same provision as in the House bill. I think it is a reasonable transition, still getting to that new higher premium.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill and a crucial issue that affects not only the entire airline industry--and is, therefore, at the center of this effort--but also it dramatically affects every Louisiana family, every American family struggling to pay its bills; that is, sky-high energy prices, including dramatically increasing prices at the pump.

I was very much looking forward to bringing up this issue with others and bringing up Vitter amendment No. 4648 to the FAA reauthorization bill to try to move forward in solving this issue. It is really a shame, in my opinion--and I think I am joined by many others in that conclusion--that the majority leader has filled up the amendment tree and shut down all amendments to this important bill.

This is an important matter: FAA reauthorization, the health of the airline industry and aviation. This is an important issue: sky-high energy prices. Of course it affects the aviation industry, but it affects all of Americans' pocketbooks as well.

In that context, I think it is particularly a shame the majority leader would shut down all amendments and shut down this important and healthy debate. But even though my amendment, and so many others germane to this topic, will not be able to be heard and voted upon, I did want to take the floor to outline those amendment ideas and to try to further the important discussion and debate.

When we think about energy prices, how to stabilize them, how to lower

them, I start with economics 101. I start with the very first rule of economics I ever learned, the very basic rule that all of us think of in economics; that is, the law of supply and demand. So as with the price of any other commodity, if you are talking about energy, a good way to try to stabilize prices and bring them down over time is to work on two things: decreasing demand and increasing supply.

Again, economics 101 would tell you if you can do that--if you can shift both of those curves, shifting the demand curve by decreasing demand, shifting the supply curve in the opposite direction by increasing supply--you not only stabilize but you bring down prices.

It seems to me we should all be coming together in a bipartisan spirit to do both. I am eager to do both. I support proposals to do both.

There are at least three fundamental ways to help decrease demand on oil and gas specifically; that is, to conserve, to increase efficiency, and to move toward alternative fuels. Our energy picture is so dire, so challenging, we cannot pick one of the three. We need to do all three aggressively, just as we also need to work aggressively on the supply side.

So I support and will continue to aggressively support measures that make sense in terms of conservation, in terms of increasing efficiency, and in terms of promoting, moving toward alternative fuels. Those all lessen the demand on oil and gas.

But too often we get in this stale debate in the Congress, this stale deadlock, where one side of the political fence only wants to attack one side of the problem, and the other side of the political fence only wants to attack the other side of the problem, when our energy picture is so dire we clearly need to do both. So as we attack that demand side, let's not ignore the supply side either. As we move to a new alternative energy future, let's not ignore the fact that we will be dealing with oil and gas and depending on it significantly for many years to come. So let's turn to the supply side too, to increase our supply as we try to decrease demand to stabilize and bring down prices.

My amendment, Vitter amendment No. 4648, would do just that. I will outline that in a minute.

Before I do, though, let me express regret that so many of the suggestions, so much of the push, at least rhetorically in political debate and campaigning on the Democratic side, seems to ignore all these lessons, seems to not think or care about demand, not think or care about supply, not think or care about the issue and doing something about it. It just seems to be designed to go after the easiest and biggest political target in sight, which is the big oil companies, specifically by proposing dramatic tax increases on big oil.

Now, if some dramatic tax increase on big oil would move us down the path of solving our energy challenge, I would look at it very seriously. The fundamental problem I have with it is that it does not solve anything and, in fact, it almost certainly makes the problem worse.

There are two versions of this same political push to just attack the easiest and the biggest political target in sight. First of all, there is a proposal that we have actually voted on several times, and we have blocked several times, that would do away with certain incentives for oil companies to go into deep water, explore, and produce more energy. It would also do away with certain royalty relief designed to do the same thing.

Now, make no mistake about it, these tax incentives are in place to push companies--small, medium, and large--to go into deeper water, more difficult terrain, and extract more energy from the ocean bed to supply us with more energy. It seems beyond debate, in my opinion, that doing away with those incentives and that royalty relief will heighten the bar, will make it more difficult for any company--small, medium, or large--to do just that. So as we are trying to increase supply, this would do just the opposite and decrease supply.

Maybe it makes some people feel good because we are whipping up on some oil companies. Maybe it earns votes and earns favor with voters, particularly in an important primary election season. But I think around here we should perhaps ask the question: Does it do anything to solve our energy picture? And the answer is no. The answer is also no because there is nothing to prevent companies from passing on that tax increase to consumers. So just while we are trying to give consumers some relief at the pump, we would almost certainly be passing a tax increase that would be passed on to them in part or in whole and up the prices at the pump.

Now, the other popular version of this same political attack is a very old idea, dusted off, and apparently given new life this election season; that is, the windfall profits tax. Oil companies make way too much money. They have exorbitant, outrageous profits, so the argument goes, so we are going to attack, we are going to tax that windfall profits.

Just as an example, the leading Democratic candidate for President, our colleague, Senator Barack Obama, has such a proposal to tax the profits made based on a price of oil over $80 a barrel. So we figure what that is on the part of any oil producer. That affects a lot of companies, not just big oil but medium and smaller producers, and for any profit associated with the price of oil over $80 a barrel, we are going to stick a big tax on that and bring that into the Federal Treasury.

Well, again, the fundamental problem with that, in my mind, is it does nothing to solve our energy problem and almost certainly makes that energy problem worse. It does nothing to increase supply. It almost certainly does something to decrease supply by making it less productive, less profitable for energy companies to go after more supply.

There are other problems as well. The first problem is the misnomer, windfall profits tax. The reported profits of the major oil companies are enormous for a very simple and basic reason: the size of the companies and the size of their activity is enormous. But, of course, as any economist would tell you, if you want to analyze a level of profit, you need to define it as a percentage of sales, as a percentage of assets--some percentage number like that--not a gross number which, of course, is going to be very large if you are dealing with an entity or a set of activities that is very large.

The fact is, when you look at that issue, when you look at oil and gas companies' profits as a percentage, it is very much in line with American business. The last figures we have are for the full calendar year 2007. In that calendar year 2007, oil and gas companies' profits were 8.3 percent.

Now, how does that compare? Well, for all of the U.S. manufacturing sector--a sector we always decry as in decline and being outsourced and in decline historically--that profit was 7.3 percent for 2007. If you take out U.S. auto companies--which are hurting, which have a much lower figure--then U.S. manufacturing was 8.9 percent. So, in fact, oil and gas companies are almost exactly in between all U.S. manufacturing, and all U.S. manufacturing except auto. It is reasonable to take out auto because they are in such dire circumstances. So they are not windfall profits at all.

Another important question to ask is, where these profits--whether they are normal or anything else--go because if we are going to stick a big tax on them, perhaps we should ask whom we are really taxing.

There is some notion out there, fueled by these political attacks and this pandering in an election year, that, well, of course, the only folks we are affecting are the executives at the big oil companies. But, of course, the facts are fundamentally different.

As this chart shows, profits of energy companies, oil and gas, go to a wide array of Americans, which today, thanks to the growth and vibrancy of our stock market and our investment opportunities, affects almost every single American. Yes, of course, corporate management owns some of their companies--about 2 percent. Most of the rest is owned by a wide array of Americans through IRAs, through other institutional investors, through mutual funds, and, perhaps most significantly, through pension funds--27 percent. That means about 129 million pension fund participants own these companies and would be taxed and attacked by these proposals. Those accounts are worth an average of $63,000. Twenty-

eight million of those pension fund accounts are for public employees-- that includes teachers and police and fire personnel, soldiers, government workers--and each of those accounts represents a public servant who owns part of that energy industry. A good example is the New York State Teachers' Retirement System. They report that 6.6 percent of their domestic equity holdings were in energy companies in 2004, the last year for which we could get figures. That includes $1.5 billion in Exxon and $500 million in Chevron. That is in large part 27 percent who own these big, bad companies that some would attack and try to tax into oblivion--average Americans all across America through pension funds, through mutual funds, through IRAs, through other institutionalized investment.

Now, again, let me return to the basic point. If we want to try to really solve our energy picture, stabilize and bring down the price, including the price at the pump, maybe we should focus on that economics 101 lesson. Maybe we should decrease demand with a more sensible policy to conserve, to increase efficiency, to move to alternative fuels, and at the same time maybe we should increase supply. That is what my amendment, the Vitter amendment No. 4648, is all about--to attack that very important supply side. We need to do both. We need to do all of these things at the same time, but we cannot exclude one side of the equation or the other.

The Vitter amendment to this FAA bill would pose a very simple solution to attack the supply side and increase supply domestically in a far more aggressive fashion. The amendment would establish a trigger in the law pegged at a certain level of the price of oil per barrel. That level would represent a 190-percent increase in the price per barrel since 2006. That comes out to just short of $126 per barrel. Now, unfortunately, of course, the price has been rising dramatically for many months, and we are not too shy of that right now. We are roughly at $120 per barrel. But at this trigger, under the Vitter amendment, if we reach and pass the trigger--about $126--then certain aspects of our Federal law would change.

Specifically, we would allow exploration and production in Federal waters, the Outer Continental Shelf off any State that wants to get into that activity. I want to emphasize that last phrase because it is very important. We would allow that activity in the Outer Continental Shelf but only if the host State--the State off whose shores the activity would happen--wants that activity to happen. Then and only then, if the Governor, with the concurrence of the State legislature, says, yes, we want to allow this activity, we would allow energy production in those waters.

We would also demand something else that is very important in terms of fairness and equity and good Federal policy. We would expand upon the revenue-sharing precedent we set about a year and a half ago when we opened new waters in the eastern gulf. That was a very important precedent, a very good energy policy, in my opinion, upon which we should build and expand.

So under this Vitter amendment, if the trigger is pulled, if States say, yes, we want to allow this oil and gas activity, we would allow that to happen. But the host State would recoup a very significant percentage of the revenue to stay in that State's coffers; specifically, 37.5 percent. That is precisely the figure we passed into law for new areas of the gulf that are being developed now because of the action we took about a year and a half ago.

In addition to that 37.5 percent, we would also have revenue sharing for the Federal fund for conservation--12.5 percent. That is an important part of the revenue-sharing precedent we set a year and a half ago as well.

Finally, the Vitter amendment would allow host States to distinguish, if they would like, between exploration production activity for natural gas and exploration production activity for oil. Some States, particularly on the eastern seaboard, would probably act immediately to allow that activity for natural gas. But there is still concern about environmental issues with regard to oil. While I might disagree with them, while I might disagree with those concerns because I believe we have the technology in place to do all of that in a very careful, sensitive, and responsible way, we should leave that up to the States so those host States can, in fact, make the choice and they can choose natural gas or they can choose oil or they can choose both under the Vitter amendment.

Now, unlike these other proposals--mostly tax proposals that have nothing but political motivation behind them and that do nothing at all to change the supply picture for the better, to change the demand picture, and to actually stabilize and bring down energy prices--this proposal would do something to improve that situation.

Resource estimates in those areas of the Outer Continental Shelf that are now off limits, that the Vitter amendment could open up if the host State wants that activity to happen, those resource estimates are staggering: the Atlantic OCS, 3.82 billion barrels of oil and 36.99 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico which is now off limits, 3.65 billion barrels of oil and 21.46 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is not counting what we have recently put on the table. The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf, 10.37 billion barrels of oil and 18.02 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is enormous total resources of almost 18 billion barrels of oil and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is enough oil to power 40 million cars and to heat 2 million households for 15 years. It is enough natural gas to heat 16 million households for almost 20 years. Now, that would actually do something about our energy picture. That would actually expand supply and therefore help stabilize and bring down price.

Is it the only thing we need to do? Absolutely not. As I said at the very beginning, our energy challenge is so great that we need to break out of this stale debate where one side of the political fence wants to do one set of things only--basically, to decrease demand--and the other side of the political fence wants to focus on one set of policies only--to increase supply. The simple fact is we need to do all of the above. We need to start immediately. We need to do it aggressively because it is only doing all of these things at once that will adequately address our energy challenges, that has a chance to stabilize and bring down prices, including the prices that rocked the airline industry and are a huge factor in aviation--we are talking about the FAA bill here on the floor now--and, of course, including the prices all Louisianans and all Americans pay at the pump.

For once, let's come together as a Senate and do all of those things. Let's really think about what can actually have an impact on price. Let's move beyond the politics of the moment, which is always to beat up on an easy and big political target such as the oil companies, and let's ask the question: Does that have any impact for the consumer? Does that have any impact in terms of our energy future? Let's do the sorts of things, such as the Vitter amendment, that can actually help the consumer and increase our energy independence.

Again, it is with great regret that I realize I am not able to actually call up this amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill right now. This is a vitally important topic. Whatever you think about it, whatever proposal you put out, certainly we can all agree that energy prices are enormously important for all Americans, for the country, and certainly we can all agree that it is an enormously important issue that goes to aviation as well as other sectors of our economy.

In that light, I think it is particularly regrettable that Senator Reid, the majority leader, has filled the amendment tree and therefore shut down the entire amendment process before it even began on a major bill on the Senate floor. The Senate floor is supposed to be renowned for an open amendment process. Yet we have amendments about the key issue facing Americans today--energy prices--and we can't offer a single one. There is something wrong here. There is something out of kilter. That is not the Senate I was told about with an open amendment process, open debate, with great, virtually unlimited opportunity. That is not what the American people expect of Congress--to actually debate

and act on real issues that they care about, and certainly that includes energy prices. So it is regrettable that we don't have a fair opportunity on the FAA bill to do just that. I hope we will have those opportunities very soon.

I understand there may be an energy bill that is moved to the floor soon on the Senate side, perhaps as early as next week. I hope that will yield an open, fair opportunity for the sort of open debate and open amendment process that is supposed to be the hallmark of the Senate. If we are given that open, fair opportunity then, as it is being denied now, I will certainly bring this proposal forward again because, unlike a lot of the rhetoric flying around, unlike the tax increase proposals which I believe will increase the price at the pump and decrease supply, I believe these proposals I have presented could do just the opposite. They could be an important step forward in addressing our energy future and the more immediate need to stabilize and bring down energy prices for all Americans.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On May 10, 2008, a group of 103 veterans will reach Washington as part of this very special program.

I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capital City this trip:

Robert M. Aitken, Jr.; Carl J. Andrews; Louis Armes;

Douglas C. Augustin; Earl J. Balser; Palmer R. Barras; Roland

N. Barrios; Maurice H. Behrnes; Charles C. Bishop; Jack Bond;

Thomas A. Booker, Jr.; John L. Boudreaux; Robert S.

Boudreaux; Wilbert P. Braud; Thomas A. Breaux; Theodore A.

Castillo; Clarence B. Champagne; Cassuis H. Clay; John H.

Coco; Joseph A. Courville; Edwin F. Curry.

Daniel M. Danahay; Leory Derouen; Charles E. Dodd; Lloyd

Dubois; Clarence Duff; Aldon Duhon; Joseph Duplechain; Clavin

L. Elliott; Alva E. English; Henry L. Fewell, Sr.; John J.

Filisky; Rayford Fantenot Leroy J. Gedward; Albert K.

Germany; Ed A. Godwin; Ernest E. Goff; Willie B. Goforth;

Bobby A. Gunn; Gerald D. Ham; William F. Harvey, Jr.; Albert

J. Hebert; Allen L. Hebert; Patrick R. Hebert.

Aloysius G. Hellmers; Willie Herron; Burnell C. Hobgood;

John W. Holeman; Daniel F. Hrachovy; Robert J. Hufft; Glen W.

Hunt; George H. Jones; Earl A. Karl; Thomas W. Kent; Gus O.

Lamperez; John W. Landry, Jr.; Joseph B. Landry; Carroll F.

LeBlanc; Cleveland J. LeBlanc; Clement O. Lejeune, Sr.;

Lawrence J. Lejeune; Robert H. Littell; Henry J. Louviere,

Jr.; Carrol E. Lyons.

Oliver W. Markland, Jr.; Leo J. Matte; Orvin A. Maxwell;

Earl E. Mayfield; Van R. Mayhall; Joseph D. McBride; Robert

J. McDonald; Francis R. Meaux; Carl L. Meriwether; Joseph N.

Mire; Raymond W. Moore, Jr.; George Mouton; James R. Neef;

Marion W. Newman; Jules U. Olivier; Reed J. Perilloux; Eugene

J. Peyton; Joseph H. Philippe; Walter Pilcher; Wallace

Primeaux, Jr.

Alex Prudhomm; Wilfred Racca; Richard C. Robert; George O.

Schmidt; George M. Shamblin, Sr.; Albert J. Simon; Howard L.

Snider; Eldridge Sonnier; Eli Sorkow; Frank Spell, Jr.;

George H. Taix; Earl E. Turner; Lawrence J. Tylock; Curliss

P. Vincent; James P. Welsh; Gloria T. White; Edwin P.

Whitson; Clarence B. Wiley; Edward Young.

While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. President, today I acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On May 3, 2008, a group of 95 veterans will reach Washington as part of this very special program.

I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capital City this trip:

Eldon L. Adams; Pat W. Aertker; Kent L. Babb; Luca Barbato;

Brant Barnett; Lennie J. Benoit; Nesby J. Bergeron; Warren J.

Bourgeois; Edward Breaux; Norman A. Briggs; Lloyd O.

Bruchhaus; Edward G. Burleigh; Ralph D. Caillier; Norman W.

Cameron; Robert T. Casanova; Viel P. Caswell; Reece J.

Chenevert; Albert L. Clifton; William L. Clifton; Vincent C.

Cuccio.

Thomas C. Darbonne; Charles W. Derbes, Sr.; Charles R.

Doucet; Lloyd J. Doucet; Walter H. Duhon; Andrew V. Fontenot;

Joseph F. Fontenot; James R. Gibson; Ernest J. Glavaz;

Raphael I. Guidry; Clyde L. Hahn, Sr.; Marion T. Harmon;

Didier J. Hebert, Jr.; Osburn Hebert; Herbert J. Hernandez;

Richard M. Hollier; Hubert J. Hulin; Isaac Huval, Sr.; Edward

B. Jennings; Norvell C. Johniken.

Raymond Kidder, Jr.; Ruth M. Kilgore; Percy J. Lalonde;

John G. Lambousy; Isaac W. Lantz; Antoine C. LeBlance; Emile

J. LeBlanc; Viealy J. Leger; Joseph H. LeGrand; Daniel J.

Lejeune; Lionel Lejeune; James R. LeMaire; Bernard Libersat,

Jr.; James C. Martien, Jr.; Robert McDaniel; Humer L. Miller;

Eugene O. Munson; Francis Myers; James R. Odom.

Theodore R. Poynter; Joseph R. Prejean; Jack M. Proffitt;

David R. Pulver; Johnny M. Rabalais; Aldon J. Richard; Erman

L. Richard; Winson Richard; Roy J. Roberie; Arthur L. Rozas;

Eddie E. Salassi; Joseph San Filippo; LeeRoy J. Savoie;

Lawrence Schambaugh; Clanice J. Schexnyder; Gordon L.

Sibille; Ellis Soileau; Louis Soileau; Wallace R. Stelly;

Nolan J. Stephens.

Harold L. Stevens; Joe P. Stevens; George Stout; Clarence

Tauzin, Sr.; George J. Tellifero; Edward A. Thistewaite;

Dallas E. Thomason; Mitchelle Trahan; Idolphus C. Turnley,

Jr.; Harris J. Veillon; Charles C. Verzwyvelt; Dudley Vice;

Stanley R. Wall; Edward R. williams; Charles C. Willoughby;

Richard G. Wilson.

While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Madam President, today I wish to acknowledge the volunteers of St. Francis Medical Center and St. Francis North Hospital in Monroe, LA. On Monday, April 28, they will hold their annual Volunteer Spring Banquet to honor its 120 active volunteers and recognize their hard work and dedication to helping others. I would like to spend a few moments highlighting their achievements.

The St. Francis Medical Center and St. Francis North Hospital volunteers combined for a total of 19,207.5 volunteer service hours for 2007. Several of these volunteers will be receiving individual awards highlighting their accomplishments and all that they do to improve their communities. I would like to recognize 11 women in particular who will receive the President's Call to Service Award for 4,000 hours or more of volunteer service in one's lifetime. These women are: Joy Beaver, Ruth Beavers, Bettye Bennett, Angie Bruscato, Lucille Calk, Ann Clayton, Ruby Coats, Eva Fowler, Talma Turrentine, Anita Tempalski, and Patsy Welch. These ladies have volunteered a total of 80,695 hours of service.

In addition, three St. Francis volunteers will receive the Daily Point of Light Award which is administered through the Points of Light Foundation on behalf of the White House. This award is designed to honor those who have made a commitment to connect Americans through service to help meet critical needs in their communities. This prestigious award is given each weekday in honor of recipients who exemplify the best in volunteerism. St. Francis is the only organization within the State of Louisiana to have three individuals honored with this award. They are: Angie Bruscato, Talma Turrentine, and Lucille Calk. These Daily Point of Light winners have been placed in the Presidential Greeter program for a possible visit from President George W. Bush in the near future.

I applaud all of the volunteers of St. Francis Medical Center and St. Francis

North Hospital in Monroe for their continued service to the citizens of their community. Their hard work and dedication is something we all appreciate and celebrate as we recognize their success.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, today I stand on the Senate floor and continue a very important discussion that I began with all of my Republican classmates in the Senate several weeks ago. It is about the need for dramatic, bold, health care reform in this country.

We adopted this as a class project, if you will. Again, I thank my colleagues Senators Thune, Burr, DeMint, Martinez, Isakson, and Coburn for their hard work on this important debate, on this important discussion.

Again, the idea is very simple: to put forward our conservative, free-market principles and what vision that leads to in terms of necessary, bold, transformative health care reform, and also to provide a clear contrast between that vision and the alternative, which is clearly in our mind a big government solution, a one-size-fits all solution that has the government role in health care grow and grow and private individual choice lessened and lessened.

In the first week of this discussion on the Senate floor, I rose and laid out our broad principles and where we wanted this discussion to lead. Again, as I said that week, I believe there is great consensus in America, almost universal consensus that our health care delivery system is badly broken and that major reform needs to take place. But, of course, having said that, the hard part is figuring out what that change is and how it can work best for the American people.

As I said in those introductory comments, I believe the broad choices are clear. Our conservative, free-market vision is to empower the individual, to maximize choice, to help everyone get good private insurance that is accessible and affordable, to use taxpayer dollars where appropriate to help the truly poor afford that sort of good private insurance that stresses preventive care and other measures that will bring down health care costs. But that is a very different vision from one based on Government first and foremost, based on Government programs, one-size-fits-all, growing those programs and in the process lessening individual choice and responsibility and lessening the sanctity of the individual doctor-patient relationship.

In the second week of our discussion, our colleague John Thune came to the floor and elaborated on a very important component of this message, which is that we want to stress a choice of private health plans as a predominant factor in American health care versus Government programs, or the one-size-fits-all, pushing people more and more in that direction and increasing the dominance of Government in this very major sector of our economy.

Following up on that, I come to the Senate floor this week to talk about a closely related principle and closely related theme, which is, again, opting for individual choice and incentives versus forced enrollment or forcing action upon citizens by the Government. Again, this is a crucial element of our vision for the dramatic, bold health care reform we need.

We believe firmly and we believe strongly that individuals are capable of choosing their own health insurance plan and that we must continue to focus on individuals and empowering individuals with choices and with incentives, not forcing individuals in a certain direction. So we are opposed to forcing people to enroll in certain plans rather than providing incentives for individuals to make rational choices that fit their own circumstances.

Congress should be pushing reform that creates those incentives for individuals, for employers, for insurance companies, and for States to come up with innovative solutions. We shouldn't be forcing mandates down people's throats, forcing them to enroll in any particular big government or other program. The way we can most effectively maximize this choice and empower the individual is through the Tax Code, creating options for families and individuals through the Tax Code that help those families buy insurance, that create those incentives that make sure it is accessible and affordable for everyone.

Now, as I suggest, Madam President, I have some pretty fundamental philosophical objections to mandating action on people. But in addition to that, I have some very practical concerns. If we look at other jurisdictions--States, even other countries--that force these mandates on people, we find they really don't work in the end.

A few examples. Hawaii--obviously a State--has a mandate that all employers must provide their workers with health insurance. Well, they think that is a magic wand that just automatically solves the problem. But it doesn't. First of all, unfortunately, it creates a barrier in many instances to creating jobs, increasing employment, and growing business. So that is a problem. But even beyond that, it doesn't insure all workers. In fact, in Hawaii, 10 percent of workers--not unemployed people, not nonworkers, but

10 percent of workers--- do not have health insurance. So there is the very practical issue of simply throwing out an edict, a mandate from the Government which doesn't accomplish the goal.

Another example is Canada. Canada requires everyone to be covered. Again, that creates significant challenges in actually making that happen and enforcing that rule. For instance, in the province of British Columbia alone, more than 40,000 people somehow slipped through the cracks or slipped through that mandate. It isn't a magic wand, and it doesn't get done.

So we believe there is a better way, and that is to maximize choice, empower the individual, and create incentives. That will get a great number of people enrolled and provide more affordability and access to health care.

We believe, as a part of that, that existing Government programs can be improved and modernized and made more efficient. And that is important. But we are opposed to attempts which often come up in this body and the other body of Congress that try to significantly expand these programs well beyond the bounds of how they were originally set up, well beyond the core constituencies or income levels for which they were established. We believe that is going down the path of big government, nationalizing health care, making government the dominant force by far, and we don't want to do that.

We also believe that encouraging competition in the marketplace is key to lowering health care costs. So we are opposed to price controls, profit ceilings, rigid expensive requirements, and mandates that usually end up doing exactly the opposite.

We believe in recognizing that seniors have increasingly turned to Medicare Advantage Plans because they offer a better value and in many cases a higher quality of care than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. So we are opposed to efforts to dismantle these programs and again lessen choice, lessen individual responsibility and choice, and push folks in one certain direction--back to a one-size-fits-all traditional Medicare fee-for-service.

We also believe that taxes should be as low as possible and that the Tax Code should be changed to put money back into families' hands, which would allow them to purchase their own health insurance. We are opposed to increasing taxes and using that money to pay for a big government one-size-fits-all model.

Madam President, I look forward, as do all of my Republican Senate classmates--Senators Thune and Burr, DeMint, Martinez, Isakson, and Coburn--to continuing this discussion, continuing this debate. As I said at the beginning, I believe virtually all of America agrees that the American health care delivery system is badly broken, that we are in desperate need of not just tinkering around the edges but bold, dramatic reform. So we want to come forward and lay out those conservative and market-based principles that we believe are the right type of change, the type of reform Americans want, reform that empowers the individual, that respects that individual doctor-patient relationship, and that maximizes choice and creates incentives, and not the wrong choice that grows big government, that lessens choice, that increases mandates, that pushes individuals in a certain direction rather than allowing them to understand what best meets their needs.

Next week, Madam President, we will continue the discussion as another of my Republican Senate classmates takes to the floor to talk about another issue in this important debate, and I look forward to listening and participating in that discussion.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On April 26, 2008 a group of 99 veterans will reach Washington as part of this very special program.

I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capitol city this trip:

Richard S. Allain; Wilton J. Aucoin, Sr.; Henry E.

Babineaux; Nolan P. Barras; James R. Bazet, Sr.; Raymond R.

Beadle, Sr.; George Beaugh, Sr.; John S. Becnel, Jr.; Charles

F. Berard; Dailey J. Berard; Cecile M. Beyt; Raymond L.

Bienvenu; Dewey D. Billodeau; Nelson C. Boudreaux; Jules C.

Bourgeois; Alby J. Bourque; Roy J. Boutte, Sr.; Adam T. Boyd;

Gerald C. Braud; Minos J. Breaux.

Charles E. Broussard; Dennis J. Broussard; Taylor J.

Broussard, Jr.; Earl H. Brown, Sr.; Leroy M. Burgess; Dracos

D. Burke; Leroy J. Coulter; Perry J. Decuir; Alvy A. DeHart;

Rogers DeHart, Sr.; Charles L. DeLahoussaye; Gustave A.

Duhon; John N. Fernandez; William S. Flores; Guy J. Folse;

Theresa D. Formeller; James T. Fulgham; Claby J. Gary;

Raymond H. George; Joseph C. Glorioso.

Carlo J. Governale; Bert A. Guiberteau; Lloyd J. Guillory;

James S. Hebert; Joseph V. Hebert; Julius M. Hebert; Oddie J.

Hebert; Lawrence Lacy; Richard LaFleur; James W. Lancios;

Alfred S. Landry; Walter J. Latiolais, Sr.; Harold P.

LeBlanc; Malcolm F. LeCompte; Joseph H. LeGrand; Robert R.

LeJeune; RosaMae Lopez; Ray A. Louviere; Charles T. Mahoney;

Frank O. Maness, Jr.

Salvadore Marchese, Jr.; Edith L. Mazurek; Mahlen M. Meaux;

Chelly P. Mendoza; Woodrow P. Mendoza; Leroy E. Miller; Leon

J. Minvielle, Jr.; Louis P. Monte'; George P. Munson; Henry

A. Myers, Sr.; Clifford D. Neal; James H. Newcomb, Sr.;

Stewart L. Newman; Jewell D. Palmer; Gerald F. Patout; Jules

G. Patout; Rene L. Patout; Jasper P. Pennington; George W.

Perry; Irwin M. Pierron.

Thomas M. Randazzo; Griffin P. Reaux; Clyde R. Redmond;

Donald A.J. Sanders; Joseph A. Sarradet, Jr.; Clifton O.

Schexnayder; Francis P. Schwing; George E. Schwing; Jerry E.

Shea, Sr.; George C. Simar; Emile J. Tauzin; Paul A.

Traywick; Daniel L. Verret, Sr.; Laines W. Vincent; RoseMary

R. Walker; Johnnie A. Webb; Oliver A. Williams, Jr.; Robert

L. Williams; Howard E. Winston.

While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, for his leadership this week and his remarks on this vital topic. As he said, a number of us have joined to forge and promote and advance this discussion; specifically, of course, Senator Thune, Senator Burr of North Carolina, Senator DeMint of South Carolina, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, Senator Isakson of Georgia, Senator Martinez of Florida, and myself.

As Senator Thune said, what we want to do is advance this debate and lay out the conservative model for dramatic, bold health care reform so we advance this debate and move toward that sort of needed reform.

Senator Thune is right. There is huge consensus in America that our health care delivery system is broken. It needs dramatic action, emergency care, if you will. But for so long here in Washington, that was only heard one way, that somehow we needed to react with a bigger government program and a big government response.

I think now the American people are more aware that we have a critical

choice, and Senator Thune has helped lay out that choice today. Is it big Government and a government program or is it more of a system dominated by private insurance, individual choice, empowering the patient, doctor-patient relationship, and that mantra Senator Thune mentioned?

Of course, I agree with him and thank him for advancing this debate. We are going to continue this debate over the next several weeks. I know in the very near future Senator Isakson will be taking the floor and going to other venues to begin talking about a closely related subject, which is the choice between forced enrollment in certain programs versus maximum individual choice.

I thank Senator Thune for his remarks and leadership and look forward to those further remarks of Senator Isakson and others as we advance this critical debate toward dramatic, bold health care reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On April 7, 2008, a group of 95 veterans will reach Washington as part of this very special program.

I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capitol city this trip:

Durelle L. Allen, Sr.; Elmer R. Allison; Daniel Angelle,

Jr.; Aline M. Arceneaux; Louis Armes; Charles Barber; Billy

J. Barrett, Sr.; Charles Barber; Harry P. Becnel; Nicholas D.

Bernard; James H. Booksh, Jr.; James L. Boulet; Valentin D.

Breaux, Jr.; Warren J. Breaux, Sr.; John W. Broussard; Don L.

Broussard; Emery Broussard; Tony Collette; Elmer Corkern;

Jack H. Crouchet; Frank J. Culotta, Sr.

Frank Deerman; Joseph I. DeVille; James G. DeVille; Julian

A. Didier; Irving A. Domingue; Carl Dougherty; Charles H.

Driggers; Russell J. Duet; Stanley T. Duhon; Donald K. Dutt;

Robert M. Fleming; Ernest E. Fontaine; Lucius J. Forsyth,

Jr.; Thomas R. Fournet; Paul U. Gary; Buren J. Gautreau;

Hewitt B. Gomez; Gerald M. Gossen; Milton L. Guilbeau.

Donald C. Harmon; Didier J. Hebert, Jr.; Joseph W. Hebert;

Adlar Hebert; James M. Jennings, Jr.; Joseph Kenner; Ruth M.

Kilgore; Robert S. King, Jr.; William A. Koch, Jr.; John E.

Landry; Wilfred R. LeBlanc; Walter A. Leonard; Grady A.

Lewis; Robert H. Little; Thomas W. Logan; Jack P. Martin;

Frank M. Mathews; Remie McGee, Jr.; Ray J. Melancon; John M.

Menard; A.G. Moulder.

William G. Neef; Richard D. Nunez; Peter C. Piccione, Sr.;

Charles D. Pierce; Ulysses J. Prevost; Wilfred Racca; Antoine

W. Richard; Javis J. Robert; Forrest Sadler; Leroy Salsman,

Jr.; Shirley L. Savoy; Lannie Scarborough; William P. Scott;

Emmet G. Sellers; William R. Shelton; Robert D. Snyder;

Hubert Sonnier; Albin H. Steiner; C. W. Sunday; Robert

Sutter; Edward Swearingen.

Vernon O. Tekell; Joseph Thibodeaux; Andrew Thibodeaux;

Wilbur P. Thousand; Emery F. Toups; Prudhome J. Trahan;

Frances C. Trahan; Walton Trahan; William O. Walker; Camile

E. Weber, Sr.; Charles Webre, Jr.; Richard M. Whaley; Walter

C. White; Frank S. Williams.

While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to help initiate an important discussion, an important discussion about health care, the enormous need for fundamental health care reform, and an important debate about what principles we should follow, what model we should use in furthering this vital and necessary health care reform. This is a class project, if you will, and I am joined by many Members of my Republican class here in the Senate, specifically Senators Burr, Coburn, DeMint, Martinez, Thune, Corker, and Isakson. All of us will be coming to the Senate floor and coming to other forums over the next 8 weeks to talk about this vitally important issue.

I think on some points there is near unanimous agreement among Americans, points like our health care delivery system and finance system truly are broken. Health care is not available or affordable to far too many Americans. The uninsured problem in this country is extremely worrisome, and just as worrisome, quite frankly, are the challenges some insured folks face in terms of keeping their insurance in the face of dramatically rising costs.

On these points, as I say, I think there is near unanimous agreement, and that leads us to a conclusion that virtually every American has reached: We need to act. This is a very real concern of every American family, and those of us in Congress need to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship, with open minds, and act on this crucial issue. As we do so, though, I think it is very important to lay out our choices in models--what the alternatives are. As I said, that is what I am doing with my fellow Republican classmates, laying out a particular vision of what that reform can look like, what it should look like, and what principles it should embody.

Again, I recognize and thank Senators Burr, Coburn, DeMint, Martinez, Thune, Corker, and Isakson for joining me in this effort. They will join me tomorrow at the Heritage Foundation to do a similar kickoff, to talk about this important debate, to talk about the principles we should follow and the choices we face. As I said, we will lay out, over the next 8 weeks, what we think that vision for a sounder, healthier future should be.

We are going to start that discussion by talking about guiding principles. Before you get to the specifics, before you get to proposals, before you get to bills, you need to have a sense of what you think the guiding principles for reform and positive change should be. Let me just start the discussion off by suggesting some of those core guiding principles that I share with my Republican classmates who are coming together on this issue. We believe a number of significant things.

First, we believe individuals and families should be in control. Individuals and families should own and control their own health insurance, rather than have the Government mandate something. That is perhaps the first and most basic and fundamental guiding principle.

In concert with that, we believe individuals are capable of and better at choosing their own health insurance plan than Government bureaucrats or insurance bureaucrats. That goes hand in hand with empowering the individual and empowering families.

We believe the current cost of health care regulation makes access to health care unnecessarily expensive for everyone and lowers quality. Everyone acknowledges the current high cost of health care. We believe a huge part of that is the cost of health care regulation. We believe existing Government programs can be improved and modernized and made more efficient, and that should happen. But we also believe part of that should not be dramatically expanding those programs to cover far more classes of individuals and more income levels than were originally proposed.

We believe encouraging competition in the marketplace is the key to lowering health care costs. That, again, goes hand in hand with empowering individuals and empowering families--giving them choice, not dramatically expanding the Government sector.

We believe and recognize that seniors have increasingly turned to Medicare Advantage Plans because in so many cases they offer a better value and a higher quality of care for traditional fee-for-service Medicare, so we strongly support that option--not making it mandatory but that option in terms of the future of Medicare.

Finally, we believe taxes should be as low as possible and the Tax Code should be changed to actually give more power to individuals, give more power to families in choosing and buying and owning their own health care.

That is a fundamental principle on which we outline our vision. As I said, once you acknowledge the enormity of the issue, the need for fundamental change which almost all of us do, once you lay out guiding principles, fundamental core principles which should help chart our future, then you can more fully get to the choices there are in the debate that we need to have in the Congress--in the Senate and the House--and much more broadly in the country.

Over these next 8 weeks we are going to be highlighting those choices and those differences. I think this is very important to do, particularly in a major election year, because as we lead up to the fall elections, these choices, in fact, are going to be a big part of our choices for candidates for President, for candidates for the House and for the Senate.

So over these next 8 weeks my colleagues and I will be talking about not only our guiding principles, what vision that sets out, but also the fundamental choices from which we have to choose those guiding principles, that vision, and that model, or to choose a very different Government-dominated model.

So we will be talking about some of those choices: No. 1, running health care by the Federal Government or empowering individuals through private-owned insurance, the fundamental choice that is at the center of this debate; No. 2, forcing certain types of enrollment in large national or Government programs versus expanding opportunities for individual choice; No. 3, mandating requirements which are often expensive mandates that add to

the cost of health care through health care regulation versus creating more choices and alternatives and flexibility which can both empower the individuals and lower cost; No. 4, how we deal with seniors, whether we take away their choices in Medicare Advantage and in drug plans or we keep and even expand their choices in these and other areas; finally, No. 5, raising taxes to support a Government-dominated model versus tax fairness, lowering taxes or creating tax deductions or credits which empower individuals to choose and buy and own good coverage.

Again, that is a quick preview of the next 8 weeks of our discussion and of some of the clear and quite stark, in some cases, choices we face as we have this debate.

In closing, let me say I think this is exactly the sort of discussion and debate we should have in the Senate. We should be responding to the American people's appropriate concern with the crisis we face in American health care. We do have a broken system in terms of getting health care to all Americans. Far too many Americans are uninsured. Far too many other Americans face real worries about being able to afford health care in the future.

We do not have the accessibility and the affordability we need. So we need to respond. Again, I think it is appropriate we start with guiding principles, what should be the fundamental guiding principles we use as we come up with specific proposals, specific plans, specific legislation. Then that, in turn, leads to a necessary and healthy discussion of what the real alternatives are, whether we want a system where we empower the individual and the family to choose and buy and own good coverage or whether we want a system where the role of the Government increases even further, and by definition it narrows individual and family choice.

I look forward to this debate as we lay out our ideas. This group of Senators, we are going to expand on these ideas somewhat tomorrow at the Heritage Foundation. We will be back on the Senate floor over the next 8 weeks talking about these guiding principles and these choices. We will be in many other venues in our States, in the Nation's Capital, all around the country, to promote this extremely important debate as we acknowledge we must fundamentally, dramatically reform our health care system to give all Americans accessible, affordable, high-quality health care.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Dr. Shea Penland, one of the leading experts on coastal restoration, for his dedicated service to Louisiana. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments.

Dr. Penland passed away suddenly at the age of 54 on Tuesday, March 25, 2008. He was a respected professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New Orleans and the director of the Pontchartrain Institute of Environmental Science. His investigations included the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Great Lakes, the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the North Sea. Dr. Penland had been an advocate for coastal protection and restoration in Louisiana and spoke passionately about how coastal wetlands and barrier islands functioned as natural storm surge barriers during hurricanes and tropical storms.

Several years ago I sponsored and passed a bill to bring together a number of individuals and entities to coordinate efforts to clean up Lake Pontchartrain and promote the restoration of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. Dr. Penland took a leadership role in this effort by helping to bring the university community together to prioritize and coordinate their research activities. The program has been very successful over the last several years, and Dr. Penland deserves a great deal of credit for helping to achieve that success.

Dr. Penland's passing is a great loss to the State of Louisiana, and Wendy and I send our thoughts and prayers out to his family, friends, and coworkers. I am positive that Dr. Penland's work will continue to benefit Louisiana and coastal regions throughout the United States for years to come.

Thus, today, I am proud to honor a fellow Louisianan, Dr. Shea Penland, and thank him for his dedicated and tireless service to our State and country.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the retirement of BG Robert Crear from his distinguished career in the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments and contributions to Louisiana and the United States.

In 1975 he graduated from Jackson State University, where he received a bachelor's degree in mathematics and a Regular Army commission as a second lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers. He holds a master's degree in national resource strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and has held various other command and staff positions in the United States and overseas, including Commander for the Corps' Southwest Division and Chief of Staff for the U.S. Corps' Headquarters here in Washington, DC. During Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, General Crear served as commander, Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil, which safely and effectively helped to ensure the economic recovery of Iraq.

In June of 2004, General Crear assumed command of the Mississippi Valley Division. As MVD commander, he is responsible for a $1 billion civil works program. He also played a vital role in managing the Corps' water resources program in the Mississippi River Valley. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Mississippi River Commission, I helped approve General Crear's nomination as President and Commissioner of MRC. After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, General Crear created Task Force Hope, a program dedicated to the restoration and rebuilding efforts in New Orleans and southeast Louisiana. It is among the largest disaster recovery operations in the history of the Corps of Engineers.

I am honored to have worked closely with General Crear. His devotion to the rebuilding and recovery efforts of the gulf coast region is a testament to his leadership and commitment. Louisiana and the gulf coast are forever grateful for his dedication and tireless effort.

Again, I would like to congratulate him on his retirement and exemplary service to our state and the country. I hope he enjoys his well deserved retirement and wish him well in all his future endeavors.