Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes in response to the very kind remarks of the Republican leader.

First, it is probably appropriate for me to note that the haircut that I now sport is an echo of that summer a couple of years ago when I cut my hair, or cut all of my hair, in tribute to the sacrifice and the celebration of the final chemotherapy treatment of Senator Specter.

He underwent another round of chemo this past summer. In the middle of the campaign, I did not think it was appropriate to shave my head. So the day after the election, 2 weeks ago, I thought there was some pent-up demand in my own heart to remember those tough weeks for Arlen Specter. So I was happy to go out and shave my head again. That is why it looks a little bit different than it might have during the campaign.

The Republican leader has been very kind in his remarks. And I cannot help but note that I am a little bit too young to have anyone paying tribute to my career, as it were, in public service. I believe very strongly that you go out, you find work that you love, a job that teaches you great things, and if you have some opportunity to serve your community, your State, your country in public service, then you think seriously about that opportunity.

That is how I came to the House and even my work in the Senate. I am going to have the opportunity to go back and do things that I find challenging being an engineer, coming out of a small business community. I know there are a lot of great challenges and opportunities that await. But I also know there may come another time when there is an opportunity to serve, and I will always take those opportunities very seriously.

On election night, whether you win or lose, you always thank the people who matter most to you. You thank your family, you thank the people of the State of New Hampshire who have been good enough to give you the privilege to serve, but you also thank the people who made your work possible in the Senate, your colleagues. I cannot think of any colleague who has been more supportive and more helpful to me over the 6 years I have been in the Senate than Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The Senator mentioned my work on the Internet tax ban, but the Senator from Kentucky did not mention his own work. This was a case where it helped to have someone with Senator McConnell's leadership and experience because while I waited patiently in the midst of a reauthorization of the Amtrak bill, once we had the opportunity to offer amendments, I happened to be prepared with an amendment that would ban taxes on Internet access. And the leader from Kentucky just happened to be prepared with a motion to close debate on that amendment so we could finally get a vote.

While that procedure may sound very arcane to people who may be listening to the Senate debate at home, it was absolutely essential in bringing that issue to a successful completion. So only by working closely with the Senator from Kentucky were we able to get that work done on the Internet tax ban. And it is perhaps the work that I am most proud of. I think it is the work I have been able to do in the Senate that will probably have the most

lasting economic impact. It is important to leave behind a record that you are proud of, but it is also maybe even more important to leave behind many fond memories of that work, fond memories of colleagues with whom you were able to spend time and, of course, fond memories of the friendships you were able to form, both with members of your own party and with those on the other side of the aisle.

Perhaps what I am most proud of overall is that the pieces of legislation I was able to sponsor and pass, whether it was the Internet tax ban, civil liberties protection that we added under the PATRIOT Act, the Wilderness Act that protects 25,000 acres of the White Mountain National Forest, were all bipartisan pieces of legislation. That means a lot to me.

I think it will serve me well in any future endeavors I undertake in public service. I thank Senator McConnell, the Republican leader.

I object.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending discussion and debate in the Senate about subsidies to the auto manufacturers and whether passing a large bailout subsidy package for the auto manufacturers is a good idea. Earlier this afternoon I objected to a unanimous consent request by Senator Mikulski and she responded to that objection by noting that she certainly hoped that objecting to a bailout package for auto manufacturers wasn't the last thing I did in the Senate, given that my term is going to be expiring and I am going to be retiring from the Senate. Well, it won't be the last thing I do. If nothing else, the last thing I will do is to explain why her legislation was such a terrible idea to the people of New Hampshire who elected me and to the American people whom I think I have an obligation to serve in making sure that their interests are protected, that their wallets are protected, and that we act with a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

We don't need to be providing subsidies, special benefits or protection to individual businesses, whether they are auto manufacturers or any other business. This is wrong for a large number of reasons. To be sure, no one is happy about the fact that our country is in a recession, that Europe is in a recession, that we have a global slowdown that will affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives across the United States and across the world. But by providing subsidies to the auto manufacturers, we do several things that are fundamentally wrong--bad for our economy, bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers.

First, quite frankly, we reward bad decisions that have been made by these firms themselves. The problems within the auto industry are largely the making of those in the auto industry: management choices, production of models that consumers choose not to buy, legacy costs, contracts, health care, pensions. We all understand that within the economic slowdown there has been a significant drop in the number of cars being manufactured, but these businesses were losing money well before the current downturn. By stepping forward now to provide them with $25 billion or $50 billion, depending on which piece of legislation we would be considering and voting on, we, quite frankly, would be taking money from taxpayers across the country and rewarding those poor decisions that have been made by the manufacturers themselves.

Second, this would set a bad precedent. There are many businesses across America that are dealing with tough times, a slowdown in their growth prospects. They have had to deal with layoffs. They have seen a significant slowdown in construction spending or consumer spending. It is affecting every corner of our economy. If we set the precedent of stepping forward with $25 billion in subsidies for auto manufacturers, every other business and industry in America would be looking for the same kind of treatment from the Federal Government. That is simply not in the taxpayers' interests. It is certainly not fair to the average taxpayer. It is not fair to those taxpayers who work for companies that won't get that kind of special treatment. Any time the Federal Government starts putting a significant amount of resources--$1 billion, $10 billion, $25 billion--into a particular firm or industry we distort the marketplace. So we would be rewarding bad decisions. We would be setting a bad precedent.

Finally, we would be placing taxpayers at even greater risk. We need to be honest about the impact of giving $25 billion to the auto manufacturers in order to sustain their unprofitable operations. Many observers have suggested that $25 billion isn't nearly enough, $50 billion probably isn't enough to stave off bankruptcy. So when these firms ultimately did have to file for bankruptcy or when the losses mounted over the next 6 months or 12 months or 18 months and the firms needed additional capital, where would they turn? Back to the taxpayer. So the expectation would be--and I think the likelihood would be--that the $25 billion or $50 billion provided today would simply be a downpayment on even greater losses and greater exposure to the taxpayers in the future.

Now, the proponents of this legislation have said a number of things. First and foremost, they have talked about the number of jobs that would be affected. No one relishes the idea of higher unemployment and job losses that have already begun in this current recession. But there are many businesses and industries across America that employ hundreds of thousands of people, that employ even more than the auto manufacturing segment. The

three largest technology-based firms in the country employ nearly twice as many people as the auto manufacturers. The three largest firms in the financial services industry employ hundreds of thousands more than the auto manufacturers do. These businesses and industries such as the auto manufacturers have their own customers and suppliers and vendors and contractors who would also be affected by the slowdown or by layoffs at those businesses.

We care about the auto manufacturers. We care about manufacturing. We care about every job in our economy, because each job is important to that worker, their family, and their dependents. But we can't be providing unique benefits, unique treatment to one business at the expense of others and at the expense of taxpayers.

A second argument that has been made is that since we passed a financial stabilization package a month ago, we should be willing to keep passing additional subsidy or bailout legislation. I think we need to understand that taking the action we took when the credit markets in the United States and across the world froze was action taken only with the greatest imaginable reluctance, and it was only taken to protect access to credit for a home loan or car loan, a small business loan that our economy needs to function every single day. Moreover, only action of the Federal Government--and the European governments as well--only that action could provide the capital or had the capacity to provide the capital necessary to enable those credit markets to function normally again. And they have begun to function more normally today.

Now, normal functioning of credit markets doesn't guarantee economic growth in this quarter or next quarter, but it does prevent a collapse of the credit system that our economy needs to operate on a daily basis.

So I think the arguments that there are jobs at stake in the auto industry is a false argument, because there are jobs at stake in every corner of our economy. The argument that an economic recovery package passed last month is justification for these kinds of subsidies to other manufacturers is mistaken as well, because that was legislation designed to protect every family, every business in America, given the unique crisis we have had in our credit markets.

Our economy is built on the idea of freedom, transparency, and entrepreneurship. I think we should never forget that. We have the freest economy in the world. If you look at the freest and most open economies in the world and compare them to their more heavily regulated counterparts, in every measure, free and open, transparent markets performed better than their more heavily regulated counterparts. I think there is a lesson here: that we should avoid Government intervention wherever possible. We should minimize the cost of regulation wherever possible. Of course, we should avoid legislation such as that being proposed for the auto manufacturers that would intervene and subsidize bad economics, poor performance, and bad management choices.

I hope this legislation will be dealt with in an appropriate way. I hope my colleagues will see the value in protecting the taxpayers by opposing this kind of intervention, this kind of unnecessary subsidy. A lot of people have made the observation that a failure to pass subsidy legislation would make bankruptcy for the auto manufacturers more likely, and that may well be the case. But the bankruptcy protection process is designed to allow firms, large and small, to reorganize, to restructure, to establish a better, more effective business model, a better system for producing the kinds of products customers want, for delivering the services our economy needs, improving efficiency and, in doing so, provide strong, well-paying jobs that are secure for as many of their employees as possible and for an employment base that suits the marketplace. But when you have a business model that has been proven to be as problematic as those of the large three auto manufacturers, sometimes bankruptcy protection is the best possible methodology for restructuring, reorganizing, and putting together a firm that is more competitive and stronger and healthier for the long term.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues. I think it is important that we protect our economy to the greatest extent possible by keeping taxes on capital low, by creating a Tax Code and a regulatory structure that encourages manufacturing and investment, that rewards entrepreneurship, but none of these things requires that we single out one firm or one business over another for a handout or a subsidy at the cost of the taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 4040, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. As many of my colleagues know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, is responsible for protecting children and families against unreasonable risks associated with 15,000 consumer products. Over the past year, Congress has worked to improve the ability of the CPSC to ensure the products in their jurisdiction are safe for children and families across the Nation. The legislation before us today will provide increased funding and expanded authorities for the CPSC to accomplish their mission.

This conference report is a comprehensive measure that reflects months of hard work on both sides of the aisle and between both Chambers. It is a compromise measure that reflects the give and take of each Chamber and each party. It is a bipartisan measure, demonstrated by the fact that the House of Representatives voted 424-1 on Wednesday in favor of this conference report.

Among the many items in this report, it takes a tough stand on lead in children's products by banning lead in products made for children 12 and younger in 6 months, setting a maximum threshold of 600 parts per million, ppm, which is reduced over time to 100 ppm after 3 years.

The conference report includes a significant increase in civil fines, with a maximum fine of $15 million, more than 8 times the current maximum, and it raises the per violation penalty cap to $100,000 from the current level of

$8,000. It also includes language to consider the economic impact on small businesses when levying a fine. Further, it toughens criminal penalties on bad actors who commit ``knowing and willful'' violations of product safety laws by making them eligible for up to 5 years in prison, fines, or both.

The conference report establishes testing and certification requirements for children's products made for those ages 12 and under before they are sold in the U.S. It also accredits third party labs to do such product testing, including qualified proprietary labs.

The conference report includes a searchable consumer database that the CPSC will have on-line in 2 years. It will contain minimum reporting requirements for data to be posted, including: a description of the product; identification of the manufacturer; a description of the harm related to the use of the product; the submitter's contact information; and verification that the submitted information is true and accurate. Companies would have ten business days to review whatever information is slated to go on the database, and post their own comments. If necessary, the CPSC would remove inaccurate material and redact confidential information.

The report gives authority to the CPSC to pick the recall remedy that a business must follow, to either replace the product, repair the product, or refund the consumer's money. It also makes it illegal to sell a recalled product, or export a recalled product without explicit permission. Further, it requires tracking labels for children's products and packaging where it is practicable, to make sure products are identifiable for more effective recall purposes.

Under the report, all foreign and domestic-made all-terrain vehicles, or ATV's, will be required to meet the same mandatory safety standards. It also bans the sale of new 3-wheeled ATV's in the United States.

On one of the more contentious items dealt with in the conference, a compromise was reached earlier this week to ban three specific phthalates, and place an interim ban on three other phthalates while a formal health assessment is done. Once complete, the CPSC would consider the findings of this assessment and conduct a rulemaking to see if the interim ban should stay in place or be removed.

Finally, the conference report provides a significant increase in the amount of funding available to the CPSC. Beginning in fiscal year 2010 and running through fiscal year 2014, the agency is authorized to receive a total of $626 million. A specific authorization for travel is included in the overall funding level to meet the ban placed on travel paid for by outside groups. Given the new and expanded authorities the CPSC will be required to undertake, this level of funding will meet those needs.

Mr. President, the American people expect the CPSC to protect them from dangerous toys and household products and ensure the consumer goods they use every day are the safest possible. Congress is giving them the tools to meet that goal.

I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to Senator Inouye, who chaired this conference committee, for the bipartisan process in which the conference was run, and how this report was crafted. I would also like to thank my fellow conferees--Senators Pryor, Boxer, Klobuchar, Stevens and Hutchison--for their hard work and due diligence in putting together a measure that should enjoy the support of a majority of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today on the topic of energy, a topic that is obviously consuming Members of both Chambers of Congress. It is something everyone in the country is focused on, and for good reason--gasoline at $4 a gallon and oil reaching $140 a barrel. Even in the heat of summer, people are concerned with how they are going to pay to heat their homes this winter.

We need a sound, balanced approach to energy. This approach certainly has not been any part of the debate we have had in Congress in recent months because all the discussion seems to center around the idea of speculation, which is something we need to address and should be concerned about, but rest assured, it is not the lion's share of the problem. We need to do more than just look at ways to appropriately regulate our financial markets.

If we look at the bill on the floor, it has fallen into that same trap. This is a bill which does not deal with conservation, it does not deal with alternative and renewable energy, it does not deal with energy research, it does not deal with electricity production, and it does not deal with new production of oil or natural gas or any other kind of energy.

I think people across the country look at a debate such as this and they scratch their heads: How can people seriously think they are going to have a positive impact on energy prices in the medium term or the long term if they are not really doing anything about either supply or demand? There is no question, we do need to continue to work to use less energy, save energy, and conserve energy. However, we also need to work to find more energy, develop new alternatives for energy production, and develop new reserves of energy at home. Those are the kinds of changes that will make a real difference in the long term, but they will also make a real difference in prices today because the energy futures market is just that--a prediction of what the price of energy will be in the future. If the markets, businesses, industry, and investors are convinced that there will be a concerted effort to do a better job saving energy--using less--and do a better job of producing energy--finding more--then those prices will, without question, come down. We need legislation that makes aggressive steps in all of these areas, and to think that we could just deal with one area one time with a very modest approach and have an impact is simply mistaken.

Regulation is important. Regulation is important because it ensures that the markets have integrity. Regulation ensures that investors, whether it is a pension fund or a mutual fund, or a farmer who is hedging prices for the potential of an increase in energy prices in the future, have confidence in the marketplace.

Any time we have a financial market, we want to make sure disclosure is appropriate. In the case of energy futures, we want to make sure we have appropriate position limits and information that is being shared across different platforms so that we understand what those positions are, what their volumes are, and what might be influencing pricing. We also want to make sure that we have information that might be important to bring to bear if there is a case of price manipulation, which is against the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The question is really whether what this bill addresses and only addresses--the idea of regulation in the markets--whether this bill as written would significantly affect price. I don't think it would have a significant impact, but I suggest you don't take my word for it. Let's look at what investors and financial experts and regulatory agencies have to say about the current problem.

Just in this past month, Warren Buffett, an intelligent investor, well known, candid, honest, certainly not a Republican, had this say:

It's not speculation, it's supply and demand. We don't have

excess capacity in the world anymore and that's why you are

seeing oil prices increase.

The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission says:

We haven't found evidence that speculators are broadly

driving these prices.

The International Energy Agency--not beholden in any way to American politicians or American investors on Wall Street or Main Street--says:

There is little evidence that large investment flows into

the futures market are causing an imbalance between supply

and demand and therefore contributing to high oil prices.

Chairman Ben Bernanke, testifying before Congress, said:

If financial speculation were pushing oil prices above the

level consistent with the fundamentals of supply and demand,

we would expect inventories of crude oil to increase. But, in

fact, available data on oil inventories show notable declines

over the past year.

These individuals and organizations are not political in nature. They share the same goal a good legislator would have, or anyone in America, to try to bring down prices. They recognize that simply adding new regulations to the futures market is not going to have a significant effect on the fundamental problem of supply and demand.

So the question is: How do we have an impact? How do we enact legislation today that will have an effect on energy prices, not just in the near term but in the long term as well? Well, we need a little more substance, don't we? And I think that starts with conservation-- the idea of using less energy.

It is important to note this is one area where this Congress has taken a positive step, passing for the first time in 32 years an increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, and raising that fuel efficiency requirement to 35 miles a gallon by the year 2020. That will make a difference, and we need to work to make sure that is fully implemented.

But we have already seen, if we look back over the last few decades, the impact that conservation can have, because today our economy uses over 30 percent less energy to produce a dollar of goods or services than we required 30 years ago. Legislation such as the conservation measure I described and was pleased to support, will help keep us on track to improve conservation.

Second, clean renewable energy. Again, this pending legislation does nothing to encourage alternative, renewable energy, and yet we have legislation that the Senate previously considered that has strong bipartisan support that would expand the incentives for wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and high-performance wood-burning systems. We have that legislation. It has passed the Senate 88 to 8. It extends the production credits. And it is good for the environment, of course, as we all know renewable energy is. In New Hampshire, where we have a strong history of sustainable forestry, incentives for high-performance wood-burning systems are good for the local economy, and it plays a real part in reducing our dependence on energy imports.

So we have conservation and we have renewable energy, but with oil reaching $140 a barrel, it is not realistic to think we can reduce our energy imports if we don't produce more here at home. We need domestic production of oil and domestic production of gas, in addition to these clean renewables and conservation initiatives.

One of the previous speakers talked about 10 to 15 billion barrels of oil in the northernmost part of Alaska, billions of barrels of equivalent reserves on the Outer Continental Shelf, deep offshore. And most importantly, today we have the technology to take advantage of these reserves in a way that is more efficient than ever before, and in a way that protects the integrity of the environment better than ever before. The time is now to employ this technology, to unlock this opportunity, and in doing so to have a real impact on the cost of energy in the United States and around the world.

The same individuals who are opposing these initiatives today opposed them 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't take action 5 years ago or 10 years ago, and now they say: Well, if you allow additional production deep offshore, it will take some time to take advantage of those reserves. Of course it will take time. Everything takes time. It takes time to build a new wind farm. It takes time to construct a new nuclear powerplant. It takes time to have the conservation proposals I talked about earlier reach their full impact. But that is all the more reason to start acting today.

Without question, an American commitment to take better advantage of resources here at home will have an impact on the predicted cost of energy out in the future. It will bring down the cost of energy today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, conservation, clean renewable energy, and production--this is a balanced approach, and it is the only approach that will attack on all fronts and ensure that we bring down the cost of energy for all Americans.

A final point I want to make is that even as we act in these areas, there is one other area we need to act on, and that is helping those who don't have the financial means to work through the coming winter months and the high cost of energy. Senator Gregg, who is now on the floor, has introduced legislation to double funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, and to do so in a way that is fully paid for. I am proud to cosponsor that legislation, and it is legislation that should also be included in this final energy package.

We need an opportunity to offer amendments on renewables, on low- income heating assistance, on production, in order to make this a meaningful energy package that makes a difference for all the people in the country by bringing down those energy costs we see every day at the pump and across the country.

Mr. President, I thank you for the time, and I look forward to the opportunity to offer amendments, which I hope will be supported aggressively on the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the legislation before the Senate today. This legislation is really of historic scope and importance, dealing with the global crisis of HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

There has been a lot said about this legislation. It is certainly not a perfect piece of legislation, and rarely do we see something that fits that description, but when we talk about infections and the impact of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the world, it is hard to exaggerate the devastating impact these diseases have had. It is also hard to fully appreciate the positive impact the U.S. leadership in this area has had as well.

Around the world, there are over 30 million people infected with HIV/ AIDS. I think perhaps even more striking is that you have 2.6 million deaths attributed to tuberculosis and malaria a year. These are deaths that are preventable. That is why the funding in this legislation is so important, because we know it will not just deal with the spread of HIV/AIDS and new infections around the world, but will also help prevent deaths today, tomorrow, the year after, and the year after.

We have the ability to prevent these illnesses, to treat them as never before, and to save lives. That is why this funding is so badly needed and will be so beneficial. I think this is the greatest humanitarian crisis I have seen, certainly in my lifetime, the spread of these diseases around the world and in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Many people have observed that this legislation includes a dramatic increase in funding, and it certainly does include a significant increase in funding, but it is essential that we allocate these funds to PEPFAR, the President's initiative, and to the global fight because we have seen the dramatic impact and success of the funds we have already allocated and appropriated.

Today, we can look back over the last 5 years and appreciate that 1.7 million people around the world now have the ARVs to treat HIV/AIDS that didn't have them before, 55 million people around the world have been reached with prevention efforts dealing with HIV/AIDS, and 25 million malaria deaths have been prevented. That is a dramatic success, and that is something all of those countries that have participated in this fight should be very proud of.

Under this legislation, the funding and initiative and the effort will continue, with $4 billion to deal with tuberculosis, $5 billion to deal with malaria, and $2 billion in funding for the Global Fund. These are significant sums of money. Many of my colleagues have observed that with such a significant allocation, oversight and accountability are essential. I could not agree more.

We need to ensure, through every avenue possible within the U.S. Government, the Global Fund, and within other relief organizations, that every effort is made to ensure appropriate use of the funds, to ensure the use of efficient allocation, and, of course, to ensure accountability.

We are measuring success, measuring performance better today than we have ever done before. We need to continue to improve that effort. We need to make sure we understand how much it costs to reach an individual or a family with ARVs, how much it costs to get treatment for malaria into the hands of those who can most benefit, how we can reduce those costs, and so on.

The fact that we have not always been able to account for these funds as effectively as we would like is not a reason not to pursue such an important initiative. We have better benchmarks than ever before in this legislation, better standards for accountability and oversight than ever before. The cost of delay isn't measured in days or weeks; the cost of a delay of this legislation is measured in lives. That is why it is so important that we act on the legislation this week, before we break for August, and that we have it signed into law this year.

Only the United States can provide this kind of leadership in terms of public awareness and in financing. It is the U.S. leadership that has been the driving force behind the successes I mentioned earlier-- the numbers reached with ARVs, the numbers reached with prevention efforts, the number of lives saved, and the number of malaria deaths prevented.

There are many reasons to undertake a piece of legislation of this scope and importance. We can begin with the humanitarian aspect. There is no greater crisis anywhere in the world than the humanitarian crisis created by the spread of HIV/AIDS and the millions who die every year from malaria, tuberculosis, and the millions of deaths that are preventable. There are the public health aspects that, in the long run, benefit not just those countries that benefit from PEPFAR, but in countries around the world, in the United States and our allies, where improvements in public health, reductions in the number of infections and, in the end, programs lead to healthier and longer lives and a better quality of life.

There are the economic impacts and benefits. It is hard to imagine a disease that has had a greater economic impact in the last 20 or 30 years than HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa. The economic costs are borne not just by the individuals in those countries where the infection rates are high, but, again, they are borne by neighboring countries, by their trading partners, and they are borne by the economies of the Western World that are called on to provide the humanitarian relief, which could be avoided if we do a better job with prevention and treatment. So there is a humanitarian cost, a public health cost, and there is an economic cost.

Finally, there is also a national security benefit to dealing more effectively with infections of HIV/AIDS and the cost of these diseases. If a public health crisis such as this is allowed to go unchecked and the economic effects are devastating, and we see weakness and collapsing economies around the world, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the subsequent collapse of civil society brings important government institutions to a halt or renders those institutions dysfunctional, then the United States and our allies will have to deal with the crisis of a failed state.

We have seen the way in which public health crises around the world have contributed to chaos and failure of government institutions and, ultimately, to the potential to lead to a more fertile ground for oppression, terrorism, and a collapse in the rule of law. All of those failures have national security implications not just for the United States, but for our allies around the world.

This is an important piece of legislation for what it does, for those around the world who are affected by HIV/AIDS, but also for what it does in setting us and our allies on the right path to deal with a humanitarian and public health crisis around the world.

I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation, even though in the eyes of some it may not be perfect, because it is certainly something that is necessary, needed, valued, and it is an area of investment that has already had a dramatic and positive impact in the lives of millions around the world.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak for a few minutes on a piece of legislation which is not pending but which I know is scheduled to be debated in the coming days in the Senate, and that measure deals with the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP.

Senator Sanders of Vermont has introduced the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act to address a potential crisis as we enter the fall and winter heating months. Heating assistance for those in economic need-- not just in New England but across the country--will become a pressing issue.

I think this is important legislation, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Sanders' initiative to provide emergency funding now so that Congress does not have to deal with it in a crisis mode as the winter months approach.

With heating oil over $4 a gallon, this is an issue that Congress needs to address early and aggressively. It is imperative that those seniors and families who depend on low-income heating assistance in New Hampshire and across the country feel confident that the resources will be there when they need them.

It is also important that Congress address this issue early so States can work with those agencies that administer the heating assistance program. In New Hampshire, the community action programs have done an outstanding job ensuring that appropriate funding is available at different eligibility levels and that this assistance gets to where it is needed as efficiently and effectively as is possible. As we approach this debate, I encourage my colleagues, to give this legislation careful consideration and support because it will make a difference in the lives of millions of people across the country. This bipartisan legislation is also something that we have the ability to pass right now.

In addition, the Senate needs to take up legislation that deals with our nation's energy situation, and I firmly believe that means being proactive on conservation, alternative and renewable clean energy development, and new energy exploration here at home. Congress must stop ruling things out. We have to stop saying: We can't do this, we can't do that. Both sides of the aisle must find ways to work together or we will never reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

As we debate additional low-income heating assistance funding, we need to look at conservation, alternative and renewable energy, and more energy production at home--there is no magic bullet; all of these avenues must be pursued to address the issue in the medium and long term. But for many families, whether heating oil is at $4 a gallon or $3 a gallon, the impact of the cost is dramatic. That is why we also need to have in place a strong Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that will make a difference to those families in need.

I look forward to supporting the legislation of my colleague from Vermont and, again, encourage all my colleagues to support the bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize the 120th anniversary of State veterans' homes, SVHs.

Following the Civil War, a large number of newly disabled veterans struggled to earn a living as they adjusted back to civilian life. While the Federal Government operated national homes for qualifying Union volunteer soldiers, the total number of veterans in need of care was overwhelming.

In order to meet this need, a number of States independently opened SVHs to care for those injured in service to their country. The first such home opened in Rocky Hill, CT, in 1864.

In August 1888, aware it had a responsibility to assist those who had so diligently and honorably served their country, Congress pledged Federal funding to assist with the operation of existing and future SVHs. This original $250,000 appropriation provided States with $100 per eligible veteran enrolled in an SVH to assist in providing needed support to those who could no longer care for themselves.

Over time, as the number of veterans requiring care increased, the Federal Government responded by providing the States with added assistance. With the establishment of the Veterans' Administration, VA, in 1930, SVHs were expanded to include three levels of care, and in 1960, Congress established a per diem payment system to replace the annual appropriation and better reflect the funding needs of the Nation's SVHs. Finally, in 1964, Congress initiated the State Home Construction Grant Program, which provided further Federal assistance and created the opportunity for a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of SVHs.

During this time, the National Association of State Veterans Homes, NASVH, was founded to promote legislation at the national level and increase communication among the Nation's SVHs. In partnership with the VA, the NASVH continues to advocate in support of the country's needy veterans and has been instrumental in increasing per diem and other funding rates.

Today, 120 years since the original appropriation, this State and Federal partnership has flourished. Currently, SVHs serve as one of the country's largest long-term care providers--offering approximately 30,000 total beds at more than 130 SVHs nationwide. In a typical year, State veterans homes will furnish nearly 7 million days of nursing home care and about 1.5 million days of domiciliary care.

In New Hampshire, veterans receive the highest quality of care under the watchful eye of Commandant Barry Conway and his extremely capable staff in Tilton. It is because of these dedicated men and women in New Hampshire and around the country that our elder veteran community receives the care they have earned and deserve.

Four minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 4999 be called up.

Mr. President, my amendment deals with affordable housing. This is a very large and complex piece of legislation. I know the members of the Banking Committee and the chairman and ranking member worked hard on this legislation. It deals with a number of government-sponsored enterprises that the Senator from Florida spoke about--the housing trust fund, tax credits to try to deal with housing inventories, and the affordability of housing.

I offer this amendment that addresses affordable housing in a slightly different venue, and that is the affordable housing supported and provided by housing authorities all over America.

My amendment reaches out to those housing authorities to help them do their job better, by reducing the amount of paperwork they have to deal with in doing their job of providing affordable and safe housing to people across America. We look especially at the smallest of the housing authorities, the ones that don't have enormous staff, or support groups, or an employment base to help deal with all of the Federal regulations we put on them.

This amendment says to the smallest housing authorities in the country, those with 750 or fewer housing units or vouchers that they manage, if you do a good job and are among the highest performers, not troubled, get the job done, perform well, and pass all of the HUD audits, you won't have to be required to submit a formal plan every single year. You still have to provide a 5-year plan, and you still have to meet all of the civil rights laws in compliance under HUD. But we take away that administrative burden of having to put together a plan every single year. That makes a difference and enables them to focus on their mission, reduce costs and their overhead, but at the same time leaves in place the core requirements that they continue to fulfill that mission effectively and comply with all of the requirements of HUD.

This is something that is strongly supported by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. I worked closely with them in crafting this language, and I worked closely with the staff on the Banking Committee in crafting this language. They provided a good number of recommendations and suggestions.

Unfortunately, we have not had many vehicles dealing with housing to come before the Senate. That is why I think it is especially appropriate that we try to address this and take care of it now, before the Senate is consumed by other issues in the months ahead. We have a great opportunity to take a common sense step that is supported by housing authorities across the country.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the 2008 recipients of the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. These prestigious awards, commonly called the ``ED''ies, are presented each year to individuals and schools who demonstrate the highest level of excellence in education.

The ``ED''ies were instituted as a way to honor the best of the best among New Hampshire's educators. For 15 years, annual award winners have been drawn from a rich source of talented and successful teachers, administrators, schools, and school boards. This year's recipients are no exception.

Those individuals selected have been compared against a criteria set by others in their discipline through their sponsoring organization. Schools are chosen by experienced educators and community leaders in New Hampshire based on guidelines established by the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Board of Directors. I am proud to recognize the individuals and schools who will receive this honor on June 7, 2008, and look forward to personally presenting this year's award for Secondary School of Excellence to Londonderry High School, as well as the Presidential Awards for Math and Science to Kimberly Knighton of Profile School and Louis Broad of Timberlane High School, respectively.

As a graduate of Salem High School, I am especially pleased that this year's New Hampshire Teacher of the Year, Benjamin Adams, has taught in Salem for 12 years. As I serve in the United States Senate, I am grateful for the excellent education I received in our New Hampshire public schools, and congratulate all of this year's award winners.

I ask that the list of the 2008 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

2008 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards Recipients

Dr. Maurissa Abecassis; Benjamin Adams; Ina Ahern; Susan

Antico; Dawn Bechtold; Alexander J. Blastos; Louis Broad;

James K. Crane; Heather R. Cummings; Blanche Garant; Tobi

Gray Chassie; Dorothy Grazier; Cynthia Grisa; Jacquelyn Hall;

Percy Hill; Mark Humphreys; Kevin Irwin; Maria Knee;

Kimberley Knighton; Dan LaFleur; William Marston; Curt

Martin; Jan Martin; John Miles; Carl J. Nelson; Christina

Nelson; Jill Pinard; Virginia Pinard; Dennis Pymm; Michael

Reardon; Christine Reinart; David Seiler; Elise Smith; Bill

Tirone; Carolann Wais; Bradley Wolff; and Ellen Zimmerman,

RN, M.Ed.

Chichester School Board, Cooperative Middle School,

Londonderry High School, Adeline C. Marston Elementary

School, Pittsfield Elementary School, Simonds Elementary

School.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Michael J. Bartlett, supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New England Field Office, who is retiring after four decades of exemplary public service. My home State of New Hampshire, the New England region, and our Nation have benefitted greatly from Mike's efforts as a tireless defender of our natural resources.

After completing military service over 37 years ago, Mike joined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a staff biologist. Prior to his current role, he served as a project leader in the New Jersey Ecological Services Office, Northeast regional chief of field operations, and Northeast deputy assistant regional director.

Like any good steward, Mike has left things better than he found them in each of these positions. Throughout his time with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mike has fostered accountability, efficiency, and teamwork. For his accomplishments in strengthening employee-supervisor relationships and improving overall employee satisfaction, Mike was honored with the Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region's ``Invest in People'' award.

Mike's leadership and collaborative approach to natural resource protection are widely respected. As Supervisor of the New England Field Office, Mike has minimized the adversarial nature of his office's regulatory role and repeatedly brought parties together for mutually beneficial outcomes. At the same time, Mike has been unwavering in his dedication to natural resource protection.

Mike was instrumental in complex and lengthy negotiations with the

Maine aquaculture industry, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and State of Maine that resulted in strong protections for endangered Atlantic salmon. Additionally, under his supervision, the New England Field Office has secured significant resource benefits by negotiating numerous settlement agreements on contentious hydroelectric project license renewals. For example, a mitigation fund created as part of the relicensing of the Fifteen Mile Falls hydroelectric project on the Connecticut River has allowed the restoration of 20 miles of river habitat, protection of over 25,000 acres of watershed lands, and fish passage improvements.

Under Mike's supervision, the New England Field Office has been a wise steward of natural resource damage assessment funds. Mike has insisted that such funds be used to obtain the greatest possible benefit for fish and wildlife impacted by oilspills and other environmental degradation. In Maine, settlement funds totaling $8 million were used to leverage over $100 million in additional investment to protect habitat for common loons and ducks that were impacted by the North Cape oilspill in Rhode Island. The combined funds secured the protection of 1.5 million acres and more than 200 lakes and ponds that provide nesting habitat for over 125 pairs of loons and 600 pairs of common eiders. In Massachusetts, settlement funds have been used to preserve endangered roseate tern colonies in Buzzards Bay, restore saltmarsh and eelgrass beds, and provide herring with spawning habitat on the Acushnet River.

Mike's emphasis on collaboration shines through in the exceptional work performed by his office through the Fish and Wildlife Service Partners program. During Mike's tenure as supervisor of the New England Field Office, the program has restored hundreds of miles of river access and thousands of acres of wetlands in the region. In New Hampshire, thanks to a highly successful dam removal program that Mike conceived and helped to create, I have witnessed improvements to our rivers such as the Contoocook and Souhegan. Meanwhile, the Partners program has restored coastal saltmarsh in Greenland, Newmarket, Newington, Hampton, Rye and North Hampton, New Hampshire. This and similar work throughout New England has enhanced landscapes and preserved critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, American shad, American eel, brook trout, and freshwater mussels.

Mike's work has also benefitted many species including Indiana bats, New England cottontail rabbits, and a variety of migratory birds such as piping plovers, bobolinks, eastern meadowlarks, loons, roseate terns, and bald eagles. His stewardship has even impacted the smallest of species. Mike's negotiation of an agreement with the city of Concord, the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, and private partners has ensured the protection of the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly through cooperative management of 300 acres of habitat at the Concord City Airport.

Mike plans to teach in his retirement, and this is fitting because he has already been a mentor, coach, and teacher for many individuals. Mike's dedication and his outgoing and gregarious personality, to which colleagues and friends attribute much of his success, are widely admired. The inspiration Mike provides for others will undoubtedly continue to be a catalyst for conservation.

Mike is to be commended for his extensive work on behalf of fish, wildlife, wetlands, and conservation in general. I am certain that Mike's retirement will be enjoyable, as some say that his professional and personal attributes may be equaled only by his aquatic resource collection skills with a fly rod. Mike's upcoming time for angling, hunting, kayaking, and relaxing with his wife, children, and grandchildren, is well-deserved. I wish Mike and his family great success in the years to come.

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

Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak for a few minutes on the bill before the Senate, the FAA modernization bill. It is an extremely important reauthorization. At the end of the day, as we pass this legislation, it will be the kind of bill that we look back on and wonder why we were not able to work out the differences a little bit faster, and get it signed into law a little bit more quickly because this is a bill that is of great importance to our transportation infrastructure, to those who rely on the aviation system every day for business travel, for family travel, and for their jobs, their livelihood.

This is an important piece of legislation because it lays the foundation for modernization of our aviation infrastructure and the technology, the air traffic control systems that we depend on every day to keep our skies safe. Technology continues to evolve, that is a good thing. It improves efficiency, improves safety, and can really have a positive impact in the skies. But at the same time, we all understand that technology costs money. To purchase new systems, to install them, to train our traffic controllers to make sure they are in the strongest possible position to use that equipment costs money.

There is no question that one of the debates that delayed this legislation was over how to fund the infrastructure improvements that are in the bill, not whether to fund, and I suppose that is good news. There was general consensus that there needed to be a strong and clear funding commitment, but there was some debate over the exact mechanism.

I certainly want to give credit to Chairman Baucus and Chairman Inouye of the Finance and Commerce Committees; the Ranking Member Grassley and Vice Chairman Stevens; and, of course, Senator Hutchison and Senator Rockefeller for the work they did on the Aviation Subcommittee.

There was a lot of disagreement as to whether we should create a new fee system, whether we should create a new bureaucracy for assessing fees on general aviation. I am pleased to see that we did not go that route. We have a system for collecting aviation taxes in place, taxes on aviation fuel and jet fuel. There was a recognition on all sides that that tax burden needed to be increased to keep pace with the needs of the aviation system. It is an efficient system. It is one that works. It is one that is well understood. I think it would have been a mistake to try to create a new bureaucracy when we have such a system in place.

So this legislation will increase the taxes on general aviation jet fuel pretty significantly from about 22 cents a gallon to 36 cents a gallon, but there is a recognition that so long as that money stays in the aviation trust fund, so long as it is used to upgrade the aviation system, it will be well spent.

This tax increase on general aviation jet fuel will provide nearly $290 million annually in additional funding for the NextGen air traffic system, and that is something to be commended. It addresses the impact of air traffic growth because it increases the system's capacity and, at the same time, improves the efficiency and, of course, our focus at all times has to be safety.

One of the points that is most impressive about our aviation system, both on the commercial aviation and general aviation side, over the last couple of decades is the improvement in safety. The improvement in performance and safety per thousand miles flown or 100,000 miles flown has been significant, and everyone benefits from that improvement. Consumers benefit from a safer system and, of course, a safer system, a safer workplace, a safer environment is less costly and less expensive.

This legislation also provides increases to the Aviation Improvement Program, AIP. That is a program that is important to airports, large and small, across the country. In New Hampshire, the Manchester Airport has undergone tremendous levels of growth during the past decade, and much of that improvement, infrastructure, and investment at Manchester has been

funded through the AIP, including the airport's noise reduction enhancements.

Today in New Hampshire, everyone benefits from the improvement in that infrastructure, the expansion at Manchester. The improvement in efficiency, not just in New Hampshire but across northern New England, creates a different choice for consumers, for businesses, and for tourism as well. That makes a difference, a real difference, in our northern New England economy.

This bill is not perfect. Rarely does anyone stand on the floor of the Senate and announce that a piece of legislation is perfect, but it is a good bipartisan effort. We will have opportunities to improve it, perhaps on the Senate floor during this debate, perhaps in conference, but it is important that we not bog down this legislation with amendments that will derail the bill, that will kill the bill, that will create a controversy that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to complete work on it in the coming weeks. It is a bill that needs to get done. It is a bill that needs to be sent to the President, not least of all so that the funding commitment for new technology can be implemented as quickly as possible.

Madam President, I again commend the work of the Senator from Texas as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation. I serve with her on the Commerce Committee, and I have really enjoyed working on this legislation. We had an exciting markup, to say the least, several months ago, but I am pleased to see we have been able to work through those differences and bring a very strong product to the floor.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Jim Adams, a Pittsfield, NH, resident who recently retired from a 35-year career with the United States Postal Service.

After bravely serving his country for 4 years in the United States Navy, Mr. Adams began his postal career as a Manchester mail carrier in 1973. During his 10 years in this position, Jim personified the Postal Service maxim, ``neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,'' through many difficult New Hampshire winters, and unpredictable New England summers.

During this time, Jim took night classes and earned a degree in business management from New Hampshire College which, along with his dedicated work ethic, helped propel him through the ranks of the Postal Service.

After 3 years in the management ranks of local New Hampshire post offices, Jim spent time in both Syracuse, NY, and Washington, DC, learning the ins and outs of the Nation's second largest employer. In 1992, Jim was selected as the executive assistant to the Postmaster General, becoming the first person ever to rise all the way through the ranks from an entry level craft position to attain that post.

In 1997, Jim returned home to New Hampshire as the district manager for customer service and sales, and in 2003, when the New Hampshire and Vermont Districts merged, Jim assumed the responsibility for both States. During this time, he oversaw 7,000 employees as they worked to ensure more than 6 million pieces of mail arrived on time throughout both New Hampshire and Vermont each day. In fact, over the last 4 years of his tenure, 98 percent of the mail in his district was delivered on time; and during the past 6 years, New Hampshire has earned the highest customer service ratings in the Nation. All the while, Jim improved the district's safety record from worst in the Nation to tenth best.

For all of Jim's success, his shining professional moment will be his leadership during the anthrax crisis that plagued the Nation shortly after September 11, 2001. His personal involvement in handling the crisis helped calm the fears of postal workers and citizens alike, and he helped us all get through the fear and distress that went hand-in- hand with this highly volatile bioterrorist attack.

Over the course of his career, Jim had the opportunity to meet five Presidents and play a role in the development of several well recognized commemorative stamps, including the World War II, Elvis, and POW/MIA stamps. From a local boy delivering mail with 3-cent stamps in 1973, to a district manager overseeing a $500 million budget in 2008--I would say that is a career well done.

Jim's well rounded operations and managerial experience gave him a unique and comprehensive view of the organization, which he was able to put to work for the benefit of the millions of postal customers in his district.

I have known Jim and his wife Sandra for many years and am sure they are looking forward to many relaxing years together with their children and grandchildren. He has dedicated himself to public service staying true to the ideal of placing the needs of others before those of yourself. Now I join with so many others in extending warm wishes as they begin a well deserved retirement together.

Madam President, this is an amendment that simply adds language to the deficit-neutral fund that emphasizes health care IT.

We all know the value of technology and improving health care efficiency, lowering costs, and reducing medical errors. Our language-- my language--would ensure that health care IT focuses first on electronic prescriptions. We know we can reduce the number of errors, the mistakes in prescribing, improve the quality of care, and improve health care costs for all our seniors by moving to electronic prescribing, with incentives for doctors, grants for doctors to accelerate this process.

This is based on legislation introduced by Senators Kerry and Stabenow on the Democratic side and Senator Ensign and me on the Republican side. It is a strong bipartisan effort that will save money and improve the cost of care. I know Senator Kerry has a similar amendment that adds further language to this section, and I hope the Senate will accept both of the amendments.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I certainly wish to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee for recognizing the frugality of us from the Granite State. Whether it is money or time, we try to be concise, try to be direct, and try to use what resources we have very wisely.

(Purpose: To save lives, promote overall health care efficiency, and lower the cost for the delivery of health care services by facilitating

the deployment and use of electronic prescribing technologies by

physicians)

I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk.

In calling up this amendment, I wish to make sure this budget resolution effectively addresses the issue of health information technology. I know the issue was addressed, in part, in the construction of the budget resolution, but I think we have a historic opportunity to enact legislation this year that makes a difference, and the kind of technology available to providers, to doctors and nurses, to patients, technology that improves efficiency, reduces medical errors, and improves the quality of care, not for thousands but for millions of Americans, especially older Americans on Medicare.

A lot of these benefits were recognized in the resolution, but I think we need to go further. We need to make sure this budget resolution, and the health care fund that was established in it, focuses on electronic prescribing in particular.

While there are a number of areas of health care information technology that have great potential, this is an area of health care IT, electronic prescriptions, whose time is now. In hundreds of thousands of places around the country, electronic prescribing systems are being used, being used effectively, to save time, to save money, to reduce unnecessary errors in the dispensing of medicine, ultimately improving the quality of care and reducing costs.

I think it is essential that this budget resolution focus on electronic prescribing and legislation to expand the use and access of electronic prescriptions because it is something we can get done this year. There is a lot of partisanship, a lot of differences of opinion on many different parts of this budget resolution. But in this particular area, we have a bipartisan approach. This has been introduced, and Senator Kerry, Senator Ensign, Senator Stabenow, and I have crafted electronic prescribing legislation that will do all these things and I think more.

It reduces the number of errors, it increases the usage of electronic prescriptions. As I say, in the end, I think

it significantly improves the Medicare Program for all our seniors. It is legislation that is ready to go. It is legislation that can be enacted today. It is legislation that has bipartisan support.

The way we make this difference, the way we improve the acceptance of electronic prescribing is, first and foremost, by providing some incentives, some costs and funding to physicians to purchase the systems, to purchase the software, to fund the hand-held units that are especially valuable in remote locations or rural areas.

So we have grants to make those systems available. Second, we provide a bonus, Medicare provides reimbursement to physicians who are using an electronic prescription system. We give them a 1-percent bonus in their reimbursement rate. We do this over a 3-year period. Then, at the end of that period, grants and incentives for those who have not been able to or have not been willing to use electronic prescription systems, we have a penalty.

Even with that penalty provision, we do allow the head of Health and Human Services to make exceptions because there are some underserved parts of the country, rural parts of the country, where such a system might not be as effective or as feasible. But in the vast majority of networks and provider systems and parts of the country, this is a technology whose time has come.

There are over 1 million cases a year where a mistake is made, where there is an adverse reaction because of a mistake in issuing a prescription. If this legislation can even reduce a fraction of those errors, we will have done a great deal to improve the health care system under Medicare for our seniors.

Because of the impact this legislation has, it has actually been evaluated as saving Medicare money in the near term, saving Medicare between $1 and $3 billion a year in the long term. There are not many pieces of legislation where you can say we are reducing the cost of the program for the taxpayers and improving the quality of care and the options available to the beneficiaries, to the seniors, and the retirees who depend on Medicare every day.

So this amendment would add to the language that establishes a health care technology fund to make clear that our priority within that fund needs to be on legislation to improve access to electronic prescriptions; that such legislation should use financial incentives; it should provide grants to purchase equipment; it should include bonus payments; in the long run it should even consider changing the allocations of those who are not willing to use this incredibly valuable technology that is available today.

I think this is an amendment that makes the reserve fund for health information technology even stronger. It sets the priorities in the right way. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

I yield the floor.