Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3339 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2490, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in

adjournment until 9:30 a.m. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to an hour with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill.

Today, we have made great progress on the Defense authorization bill, and we are now on track to complete action on it tomorrow. Tomorrow will be a very busy day with votes on the remaining amendments. Senators can expect a late night, if necessary, to finish the Defense bill. Before we leave for the week, we will also be scheduling votes on several appropriations conference reports.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership on the Medicare and Medicaid portion of this reconciliation package and am committed to working with you to achieve reductions in mandatory spending programs under your jurisdiction as instructed in the congressional budget resolution. I believe that it is necessary to maintain fiscal constraint and recognize the difficult task involved in achieving that end while ensuring that the country's health care safety net remains available for our citizens who truly need it the most.

As we move forward in advancing that goal, I understand that there are several changes included in the reconciliation package being considered today that address Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement for prescription drugs dispensed in the pharmacy setting. I know you and your staff worked very hard to craft the Medicaid provisions contained in this legislation and that we both share the common goal of ensuring that Medicaid beneficiaries continue to have access to cost-effective prescription drugs reimbursed at an appropriate rate.

In that light, I understand that it is not your intent to inadvertently disrupt the highly efficient drug distribution system responsible for assuring access to needed drugs across the Nation's pharmacies. I think we both believe that the drug distribution system can best be preserved if prompt-pay discounts paid to distributors are excluded from the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement methodology. Was this the Chairman's intention?

I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him in this effort. I know he agrees with me that Congress should not establish a Medicaid pharmaceutical reimbursement system that might discourage manufacturers from paying distributors prompt-pay discounts if wholesalers pay their bill prior to their contractual obligation--a practice that has occurred for the past 30 years.

We both understand that the drug distribution system has consistently ensured that every pharmacy in the Nation has access to prescription drugs in a timely manner. This system is highly complex but provides an extremely efficient delivery model that reduces health care costs to the overall health care system.

Within the system, pharmaceutical distributors are able to reduce the cost by minimizing the overall number of transactions required to distribute prescription drugs, over-the-counter products, and medical supplies. Nationally, wholesalers serve more than 130,000 customers. The typical distributor purchases products from an average of 850 vendors. These distributors take ownership of the products and responsibility for warehousing and distributing individual orders to retail pharmacies and other sites of care on a daily basis. This efficient model ensures that pharmacies have pharmaceutical products available for their patients.

I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley to maintain this current drug distribution system and to ensure that when the legislation before us is enacted into law, it clearly excludes prompt- pay discounts from the pharmacy reimbursement methodology that will be used to pay pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries.

medicare bad debt, collection

I rise today to discuss and bring to my colleague's attention an issue that I believe must become one of our Nation's top education priorities. As the world's economy becomes more interconnected, our Nation's economic edge will continue to depend on our ability to innovate. We cannot remain competitive without a workforce full of educated and motivated young Americans.

We must invest in our children and enable them to fully develop their God-given talents in order to compete in a knowledge-based, global economy. This means we have to place more emphasis on careers in science, engineering and math. Right now, we are not getting the job done.

Globally, the United States ranks 17th in the proportion of the college-age population earning science and engineering degrees, down from 3rd place several decades ago.

While China graduated 600,000 engineers and India graduated 350,000 last year, only 70,000 students earned degrees in engineering here in the United States.

In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with science or engineering degrees is now higher in many industrialized nations. Countries including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Canada all produce a higher percentage of science and engineering graduates than the United States.

Is the chairman aware of these startling statistics?

I thank the chairman for his attention to the issue and the opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of science and math education today. I know there are other Senators, especially Senators Alexander and Bingaman, who care a great deal about this issue. In fact, as many of my colleagues know, Senator Alexander and Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science to compile a report on the top 10 actions the Federal Government can take to enhance our ability to compete in our global economy. And while the academy provided

a variety of recommendations, from the crucial need for energy independence and investment in research infrastructure--which are in their own right extremely important--a great deal of their recommendations focus on the need to improve our Nation's math and science coursework and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who will prepare our students for futures in highly innovative careers.

Has the chairman seen this report?

I thank the chairman. I have heard from my State's superintendent that MSP grants have gone a long way in Ohio to support programs the Ohio Science Institute, which is a statewide professional development opportunity for science teachers of grades 3-10, and the Ohio Mathematics Academy Program, which is a statewide professional development opportunity for mathematics teachers in similar grades.

As the chairman and many of my colleagues are aware, I am a fiscal conservative and understand the deficit and funding constraints we face.

Yet, in light of the National Academy's report and other studies that point to our Nation's declining rank in science and math students, I don't know of too many other programs that deserve our focus and investment more than those that will prepare our children to compete in the global marketplace.

I thank the chairman for his commitment to science and math education programs as we move to conference on this appropriations bill. I hope his commitment to quality science and math education will extend even further down the road, as we prepare our budgets for the next fiscal year.

cdc's arthritis program

I ask unanimous consent Jeff Muhs of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2005,'' a bill to authorize the exchange of certain land parcels between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. This proposal was submitted to Congress by the administration with support of the District.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I understand the special relationship shared with the Federal Government and the District. Because of this relationship, Congress shares in the responsibility of ensuring that the Nation's capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city.

Under this legislation, the Federal properties to be transferred to the District of Columbia will be put to better use. This will free up tax dollars being used to maintain the underutilized land to be spent on more important needs facing our Nation. The vast majority of the conveyance is contained in three large properties at or near the Anacostia River: Popular Point, Reservation 13, and several acres of National Park Service land near Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. The bill also would transfer buildings and property located on the west campus of St. Elizabeth's Hospital and several smaller properties from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government.

Conveying these properties will allow the Federal Government to better manage its properties. Additionally, the District gains the ability to spur economic development in Southeast Washington, better address the needs of its citizens, and increase the local tax base. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the ``Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2005,'' a bill to authorize the exchange of certain land parcels between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia. This proposal was submitted to Congress by the administration with support of the District.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I understand the special relationship shared with the Federal Government and the District. Because of this relationship, Congress shares in the responsibility of ensuring that the Nation's capital remains a socially, economically, and culturally vibrant city.

Under this legislation, the Federal properties to be transferred to the District of Columbia will be put to better use. This will free up tax dollars being used to maintain the underutilized land to be spent on more important needs facing our Nation. The vast majority of the conveyance is contained in three large properties at or near the Anacostia River: Popular Point, Reservation 13, and several acres of National Park Service land near Robert F. Kennedy Stadium. The bill also would transfer buildings and property located on the west campus of St. Elizabeth's Hospital and several smaller properties from the District of Columbia to the Federal Government.

Conveying these properties will allow the Federal Government to better manage its properties. Additionally, the District gains the ability to spur economic development in Southeast Washington, better address the needs of its citizens, and increase the local tax base. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and I am confident that it can be enacted this year.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Before I discuss my reasons for supporting Judge Roberts, however, I would like to make a few remarks about the judicial confirmation process. Judge Roberts is the first nominee to the Supreme Court since I have been a Senator. I have been very pleased with how his nomination has been handled by both the White House and the Judiciary Committee and hope that this confirmation process will be a model for future confirmations.

I want to compliment the President, and in particular the President's Counsel Harriet Miers, for doing an excellent job in reaching out to Senators prior to Judge Roberts' nomination. Ms. Miers called me prior to Judge Roberts' nomination and asked me what qualities I thought the President's nominee should possess. Our conversation gave me confidence that the President wanted to work with Senators to make sure that he nominated an excellent candidate--which I believe he succeeded in doing. I hope the White House undertakes the same outreach to the Senate prior to the President's nomination of the next nominee to the Supreme Court.

I also want to compliment Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for the superb job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts. The hearings were fair and orderly and did not significantly interfere with the Senate's other business. I was very pleased that the questioning and debate on Judge Roberts was largely devoid of personal attacks. Indeed, I think the hearings gave the country an opportunity to see what type of judge and person Judge Roberts is. They also gave the country a wonderful lesson in constitutional law. I hope that Judge Roberts' confirmation hearing will serve as a model for future confirmation hearings for nominees to the Supreme Court.

Turning now to Judge Roberts' nomination, I believe that Judge Roberts is among the finest candidates to the Supreme Court in our Nation's history. I believe history will look back on the nomination of Judge Roberts as one of the most important legacies of the Bush administration.

When I spoke with White House Counsel Harriet Miers on the qualities I looked for in a Supreme Court nominee, I told her there were two qualities I valued most. First, a nominee must have outstanding professional credentials. Second, a nominee must be committed to the rule of law. I am very pleased to say that Judge Roberts is extraordinarily qualified on both of these counts.

It is difficult to see how Judge Roberts could have more impressive professional credentials. From his academic record to his Government service to his law practice, Judge Roberts has accumulated a remarkable record of achievement.

As my colleagues have previously noted, he graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude in 3 years, and graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, where he served as the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. During his time at Harvard, he was awarded numerous academic accolades, including being inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.

He has excellent Government experience, having served as a law clerk to then Justice William Rehnquist and in several top positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations, including as Associate Counsel to President Reagan and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the first President Bush.

Prior to his unanimous confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Roberts was widely regarded as the best Supreme Court litigator in the Nation. Throughout his distinguished career, he argued an impressive 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

He has now served for 3 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, which is regarded as among the most important appellate courts in the Nation. As a judge, he has developed a reputation for fairness and producing well-written and well-reasoned opinions.

This impressive background has made Judge Roberts well prepared to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As he displayed during his confirmation hearings, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Supreme Court and of constitutional law. Yet, he also has real world experience in Government and in how law interacts with the actual day-to-day operation of Government. Judge Roberts has the perfect balance of academic and practical experience.

Judge Roberts also has an impeccable ethical record. No question has been raised regarding his integrity or professionalism. On the contrary, the record is full of testimony praising his honesty and propriety from friends and former colleagues. Moreover, during his confirmation hearings he properly resisted the temptation to discuss cases and legal disputes that could come before him as Chief Justice so he would not bias his consideration of those cases and debates. While some would like to hear how Judge Roberts would decide future cases, it is clear that legal ethics prevent him from doing so. Furthermore, knowing how a nominee is going to decide future cases is not necessary to select good judges. When I was Governor, I appointed scores of judges and never--not once--did I ask how they would decide a case. Instead, I examined their credentials, reviewed their writings and past decisions and, on several occasions, personally interviewed them.

Given his professional achievements and ethical record, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given him a unanimous well-qualified rating, its highest rating.

I also believe that Judge Roberts has shown a commitment to the rule of law. Now, no two people will agree on how to interpret every provision of the Constitution or every statute. I may not agree with all of Judge Roberts' future decisions. However, I think that it is essential that any nominee displays a conscious commitment to deciding cases based on the law rather than on his or her own personal views.

During Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings, I was struck by how dedicated he is to the law and to correctly applying the law as a judge. As he stated during his testimony, ``Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.'' He also revealed his dedication to the law by recognizing that the judiciary has a limited role in our government. This means that judges are, to use Judge Roberts' words, ``constrained by the words of the Constitution'' and ``by the precedents of other judges.'' Judges must interpret the law based on the text of the Constitution or statute, as the case may be, and based on precedent, rather than on their own personal beliefs about how the case should be resolved. It is the role of Congress to pass legislation and the role of the courts to apply that legislation to particular cases. I believe Judge Roberts not only understands this distinction, but also will prove to be both a skilled practitioner and an eloquent advocate of judicial restraint.

Accordingly, I have every confidence that parties who appear before Judge Roberts will see a fair and brilliant judge who will decide their case according to the dictates of the law, not his own personal preferences.

When I initially spoke to Ms. Miers about the qualities I was looking for in a nominee, we were discussing a replacement for Justice O'Connor. Now that Judge Roberts has been re-nominated to be Chief Justice, I believe that Judge Roberts' management skills are an important aspect to consider. The Chief Justice is the top administrator of the Federal Courts, so any nominee to Chief Justice must possess management skills. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist was an excellent administrator, so Judge Roberts has some shoes to fill.

I had an opportunity to sit down with Judge Roberts, and I asked him about his management experience. We discussed his management responsibilities while he was at his law firm where he helped manage the firm's litigation group. While Judge Roberts has never managed anything as large as the Federal court system, our conversation convinced me that he has the management skills necessary to be Chief Justice. He clearly has already thought about how he will undertake his management responsibilities and what he needs to do in order to effectively carry out those responsibilities.

Finally, I want to offer some personal observations about Judge Roberts. Too often we view executive and judicial nominees through political or ideological glasses and not as human beings. Nominees quickly get labeled as being a ``Republican Nominee'' or a ``Democratic Nominee'' or as belonging to a particular ``school of thought'' or as being a follower of a particular thinker or politician. This is unfortunate, as each nominee's own personality gets overlooked and we fail to see the most important aspect of a nominee. It is, however, a nominee's character that can have the biggest impact on his or her work.

In Judge Roberts, I believe the Senate has before it not only a nominee who has the capability to be a great Chief Justice, but also a nominee who is simply a wonderful person. During my meeting with him, I was struck by his gracious manner and humble attitude. He is clearly very smart and engaging, and it is a pleasure to hear him explain Supreme Court cases. But, he is also a very open minded person, who listens to others with sincerity and a willingness to hear their views. Yet what struck me most about him was his humility. For such a brilliant and successful person, I did not detect a hint of arrogance. He is a dedicated family man with a good sense of humor whom I believe all Americans will be able to respect and admire.

I have been struck by how my regard for Judge Roberts has been echoed by so many others, including many whose politics may differ from his. I would like to encourage my colleagues to get a hold of an interview C- SPAN recently aired of Professor Richard Lazarus and Patricia Brannan, two longtime friends of Judge Roberts. Both Professor Lazarus and Ms. Brannan are Democrats, but they both expressed the highest respect for Judge Roberts and supported his nomination. Now, such testimonials may concern some of my Republican friends, but to me they are further signs that Judge Roberts has the ability to persuade people across the spectrum about the importance of judicial restraint.

In short, I believe Judge Roberts displays the openmindedness and humility that should serve as the paradigm of judicial temperament for members of the Federal bench.

In reviewing Judge Roberts' impeccable academic and professional record, his firm commitment to the rule of law, and his strong character, I believe that Judge Roberts is a nominee of the highest caliber. Indeed, I wonder if a stronger nominee could be found.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This represents a continuing saga that started out in 2001 by those of us from the midwestern part of the United States of America with our respected friends from the northeastern part of the United States. I believe everyone should put what we are doing tonight in context; that is, to be effective, this resolution must be passed by the Senate and House and signed by the President.

While the act provides for expedited and privileged procedures in the Senate, there is no such rule in the House. The House will not consider this. The President announced today, if the resolution is passed, that he would veto it. That is where we are.

On March 15, the EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury Rule and made the United States the first nation in the world to regulate mercury emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants--the first in the world. Through two phases in a ``cap-and-trade'' program, mercury emissions will be reduced by 70 percent. This is modeled after the Nation's most successful clean air program, the Acid Rain Program. Modeling by the Electric Power Research Institute, an independent nonprofit research organization, shows that the rule will reduce mercury in every State. This is quite amazing, given the nature of mercury.

It is important for my colleagues to understand that all the mercury that is being deposited in the United States doesn't come from the United States. Only 1 percent of the mercury in the world comes from our powerplants in this country. Mercury pollution is a global issue because it travels hundreds of thousands of miles. About 5 percent of worldwide mercury emissions comes from natural sources, such as oceans and volcanoes. From 1990 to 1999, EPA estimates that U.S. emissions of mercury were reduced by nearly a half, which has been completely offset by increases in emissions from Asia.

The fact is that U.S. powerplants account for a small percentage of worldwide emissions, and most of the mercury deposited in our Nation comes from outside the country and natural sources. Still, the administration has decided to lead with the first-ever Federal regulation of powerplant mercury emissions in the world.

By using the Congressional Review Act, the Senator from Vermont and the resolution's supporters are seeking to topple this regulation that has been nearly 15 years in the making--starting in the Clinton administration--and represents one of the most extensive rulemakings ever conducted for a clean air regulation.

The broader intent of the resolution seems to force EPA to impose a very costly and potentially devastating regulation. Several of the sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 20 have expressed support for maximum available control technology--called a MACT standard--to reduce mercury emissions from every powerplant by 90 percent within 3 years. Proponents of this approach claim that each powerplant should be able to reduce mercury emissions by at least 90 percent. However, this level of reduction is not currently achievable, and no controlled technology vendor can guarantee the performance of mercury removal technology at this or any other specific level in the future.

According to the independent Energy Information Administration, a MACT standard would have a devastating impact on our Nation because coal plants unable to attain it would be forced to fuel-switch away from coal, which is our most abundant and least costly energy source, to natural gas.

Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will add to the already obscene increase in natural gas costs that our businesses and families are exposed to, including those people who live in the northeastern part of the United States. We have the highest natural gas prices in the developed world, and increased costs have diminished our businesses' competitive position in the global marketplace. We don't live in a cocoon; we live in a global marketplace. The chemical industry's eight-decade run as a major exporter ended in 2003 with a $19 billion trade surplus in 1997 becoming a $9.6 billion deficit. These are real jobs.

The impact of a MACT standard has led many groups to express opposition to this resolution, including the American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Edison Electric Institute, National Mining Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and United Mine Workers of America. It just can't be justified from a cost- benefit point of view.

This is very important. While EPA estimates the cost of its cap-and- trade rule at about $2 billion, EIA has projected costs as high as $358 billion for a 90-percent MACT standard.

The public's return for such a regulation is an average increase in national electricity and natural gas prices by 20 percent and additional reduction in U.S. mercury disposition of 2 percent, an almost immeasurable decline in people's exposure to mercury.

I don't understand why people in this country are so bent on doing the ``perfect,'' when you have something that is good and makes sense from a cost-benefit point of view. Given the state of technology and cost of various proposals, the best way to reduce emissions now is by reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides and getting cost-benefit reductions. Obtaining reductions cost effectively is very important; otherwise, companies may not be able to move forward with other pollution benefits such as integrated gasification combined cycle.

We are moving ahead with the Energy bill and by reducing SOX and NOX we will do more to reduce mercury than any other proposal out there. I hope my colleagues understand what we are talking about tonight. Whatever happens tonight, it is going nowhere because the President has said he will veto this resolution if it passes.

I yield the floor.