Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment, No. 1669, be withdrawn.

I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee. We tried to work out an accommodation on the amendment. They made a good-faith effort, and we were unable to do so.

I also want to let the chairman and the ranking member know that the amendment I had filed dealing with eminent domain will not be offered. This is a very important issue. I do not believe government should be able to take private land for the purposes of private economic development. People are well aware of the case this deals with. It is of grave concern to a lot of Members. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee indicated they will have hearings on this matter next week. I look forward to a full discussion of the case and the issues associated with the taking of private land. I want the chairman and the ranking member to know I will not offer that amendment that has been filed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for consideration of an amendment that I had earlier sent to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment today to make some changes in the funding allocations that are found in this bill. I very much appreciate the work of the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member. I know, having served on the Appropriations Committee in the House, it is not an easy task. You are asked to set a lot of priorities, to make a lot of decisions about a good deal of money. It is not an easy task, but the purpose of bringing the bill to the floor is to give us an opportunity to adjust those priorities. I attempt to do so in this amendment in a couple of ways.

In this amendment I increase the funding in two general areas: first, in the area of border security and prosecution of illegal aliens who have committed crimes. This is an area that I think many people would say is in crisis right now, the problem with securing our borders, the problem with illegal aliens, and specifically the problem of dealing with the costs associated with illegal aliens who are committing crimes, violent crimes and otherwise. In this amendment I increase funding for the Criminal Alien Assistance Program by $60 million. It is still well short of the funding that has been provided in the companion bill in the House.

But it is an increase which I think will be well used. It deals in the area of illegal immigration and criminal alien assistance that I think most everyone agrees is in a crisis situation now with the state of emergency having been declared in parts of the Southwest to deal with this type of problem.

Similarly, this amendment increases funding by $18 million for the Southwest Border Initiative that deals with prosecution, helping our Southwestern States deal with the costs associated with prosecuting aliens that have committed crimes against the laws of those States and the Federal Government.

It brings that level of funding up to the President's level. I think the President's request in this particular area was well warranted, given how much attention has been given to the problem of illegal aliens in recent years.

This increases funding in this critical area by $78 million.

My amendment also provides additional funding of $50 million to transitional housing for women who have been exposed to domestic violence. This is a relatively new program. It is authorized at $30 million per year. The bill appropriates only $15 million. I would increase that to $30 million for this transitional housing program, which is part of the programs authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. Transitional housing is critical. It meets the needs of those who require emergency shelter services or crisis intervention. There is no other program funded by the Federal Government that provides transitional housing solely for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is not typically the case in the Federal Government. There are no other sources of funding, and we ought to provide funding at the authorized level.

In the State of New Hampshire, there are 12 emergency shelters for battered women. The average length of stay is about 27 nights.

Therein lies the immediate need for transitional housing. I think that is probably a story that is repeated in State after State.

I think it is not only a worthwhile area but an area in need of funds, an area where there are no other programs at the Federal Government level for meeting this need.

The funds that I allocate to deal with criminal alien prosecution and transitional housing for those affected by domestic violence will come from the Advanced Technology Program, APT. This is a program that has long been targeted for elimination. The funds over the last several years have been phased down.

Last year, funding was provided only for existing contracts--for no new contracts. I think it makes sense to at lease hold the line at that level. So I scaled back funding to a level that is appropriate to cover all the existing contracts so anyone who has an obligation under ATP will have that obligation met. We simply would not provide funds for additional contracts. I think that is the right policy. I think the entire program should be phased down and eliminated for a few fundamental reasons.

First and foremost, this duplicates what already exists in the private sector. The ATP program gives funding to private companies that are developing new programs. That is why we have a venture capital system. That is why we have the private banking system. That is why we have private equity funding--to support companies that are competing in the marketplace and developing new products every day. I used to work for a technology firm. We developed new products, and we certainly didn't look to the Federal Government to fund new product development. It is a historic marketplace because inevitably you will have a bureaucrat in Washington deciding which new product ideas get funding and which do not. That is not a good idea and not a good use of public resources--to try to pick winners and losers in the product development marketplace.

Finally, these are funds, resources, public funding that are going to private companies, many of which are very profitable and very successful. We shouldn't have an industrial policy at the Federal level that provides unnecessary subsidies to private corporations.

I think we can do better. We can find better areas in which to allocate these resources--dealing with illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegal aliens, and transitional housing for those affected by domestic violence.

Those are certainly priorities that are much more significant, much more valuable, much more appropriate than a project that subsidizes private companies.

The final point about the Advanced Technology Program: It has been allocated at over $100 million, $150 million to $200 million, depending on how far back in time you go.

I simply ask my colleagues to consider, if they were at a company, say, that was developing microprocessors, and one of their competitors was being given a subsidy by the Federal Government to do the same thing, would you think that was fair? If you were developing heating equipment and one of your competitors was being given a product development subsidy by the Federal Government, would you think that was fair?

This distorts the marketplace. It is simply not a good use of taxpayer money, but we only scale it back to the extent that all current obligations continue to be met.

I think this is fair, it is the right thing to do, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

notice of intent

Mr. President, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3057 yesterday, which was accepted as part of a managers' package to increase economic support fund monies for Lebanon from $35 million to $40 million, and to increase the support of the American educational institutions in Lebanon out of those monies from $4 million to $6 million. I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy in that regard.

The Cedar Revolution, in which the people of Lebanon have expressed their frustration with outside interference in their internal affairs and with a sectarian brand of politics that has produced corruption, undemocratic practices, and a faltering economy, has inspired hope for major political transformation not only in Lebanon, but in other countries of the Middle East as well. It is important to express our support for the people of Lebanon, both symbolically and in concrete terms that will assist them in reviving their economy and in carrying forward a process of reform that still requires much effort and determination.

Fortunately, the Agency for International development has for some years run a small but effective assistance program in the country, relying largely on American nongovernmental organizations and education institutions which operate in Lebanon. USAID therefore has the experience and the partners to efficiently put additional assistance to good use. The

priorities should continue to be fostering fundamental democratic principles and economic recovery.

My amendment recognizes, as has the Appropriations Committee in its bill, the special role of the American educational institutions in achieving these goals. The American schools in Lebanon, through scholarships that these funds make possible, prepare the next generation of leaders by graduating young men and women who have a solid understanding of the forces of globalization, are committed to democratic values, and have the skills to reform their societies and bridge the differences between those societies and the West. Young leaders such as these will assure the future not just of Lebanon, but of the region as a whole. Lebanon benefits when such men and women from throughout the Middle East are educated at the renowned American schools in the country, as does the United States. It is therefore my intention that scholarship funds made available for these schools can be provided for students from any country within the region.

Mr. President, in discussing this trade bill earlier today, and throughout the day, I think a lot of mention has been made of specific firms--firms that over the past number of years have been affected by international trade. There was a list on the floor that included companies such as Levi's and Fruit of the Loom. That is a fact. These companies have been affected. They are eligible for the Trade Adjustment and Assistance Program, and that is one of the challenges of the job that we do as elected representatives. We see firms in States grow, but we also see them have to deal with challenges of competition, both domestic and international competition.

In New Hampshire, my home State, we have had an electronics firm that saw its plastic molding jobs go to Mexico. But even more recently, we have seen a firm that did meat processing lose 500 or 600 jobs to some Midwestern States. So we see competition not just from overseas but domestically as well.

At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the jobs that are created. Over the past year, I think 2.5 million jobs have been created in the United States. Over the last decade, it is a significantly greater number than that. It

has been in areas like software, pharmaceuticals, and financial services--significant, value-added, high-paying jobs.

That brings me back to the very basic question of why we even trade in the first place. We trade, and I support expanding opportunities for trade and knocking down barriers to trade because it creates opportunities for consumers. It gives our consumers in America the opportunity and the freedom to buy the products they want, to purchase the goods and services that they want to choose. It gives them access to products and services that they would not otherwise have. It is good for American consumers, and it is good for our economy. It gives firms, large and small, in a similar way access to cheaper, affordable goods and services, and trade allows American individuals, American companies to focus on what we do best, thereby improving our productivity here at home.

We want trade to be fair. Everyone talks about fair trade. If we look at the tariffs that exist today--this is a small card that was prepared by the chairman of the Finance Committee, but it highlights what we pay now in tariffs of products coming into the United States: 10 percent, 16 percent, 11 percent, 12 percent on products such as petroleum or chemicals, metals and metal products, motor vehicles and parts. We pay 10, 12 or 15 percent in tariffs, and the countries that are affected by this agreement today pay zero. We pay 10 or 12 percent, they pay zero. What this trade agreement will do is knock that tariff that U.S. companies and consumers pay down to zero on all the products I just mentioned. That is why this is a step in the right direction. That is why an agreement such as this that lowers tariffs benefits consumers, creates a stronger global economy, but perhaps most important of all is good and right for the U.S. economy.

I am very pleased to support S. 1307. I know it is very difficult for the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee to move something like this through their committee, but I appreciate their work and congratulate them for their work and urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, is my amendment the pending business?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we are preparing to vote on an amendment that I think does justice to the taxpayers. It doesn't make any sense to have a timber program that costs the taxpayers nearly $49 million but yields less than $1 million in revenue. Unfortunately, that is the situation we have in the Tongass. A significant portion of funding goes to building roads that support the efforts of private timber companies. I don't think it is too much to ask to simply require that those companies pay the expense of the road building themselves and not ask the taxpayers to provide that subsidy.

This is a straightforward amendment. It doesn't change any designation on land. It doesn't create any new wilderness area. It doesn't create any new roadless areas. It simply says for timber operations to continue, the private timber firms must put up the money to build the roads.

I am a strong supporter and will remain a strong supporter of a multiuse concept for the national forests. It makes sense because they are important places. They are places that should be able to be enjoyed for recreation hunting or fishing or snowmobiling--and they have economic uses as well. Where the taxpayers are concerned, where Federal funds are concerned, we need to be a little bit more cautious, especially in a time when we have $300 or $350 billion deficits. Spending nearly $49 million, which was the tally in fiscal year 2004, for a program that yields revenues of $800,000 doesn't make any sense.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the issue here isn't the cost to manage a national forest because we recognize national forests are special places. We want to manage them. We want to operate them. We want to run them for the enjoyment of people, and different forests are going to have different requirements and different costs associated with that management. Whether it is $1 an acre or $1,000 an acre, we want them to be run in an efficient way. It is not about the cost of management. It is not about the profitability of a timber program. As was pointed out, most of the timber programs technically lose money on a profit-and-loss basis. What it is really about is, in looking at those timber programs, should the taxpayers pay for the costs of building the roads, or is that a cost that should be borne by the private enterprise?

That is what this debate is about and the answer is no. Certainly, in the case of the Tongass, that is an area where more money is being spent to build more roads to benefit private companies with the least return imaginable.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, it is always frustrating when different people are working with different numbers. The suggestion was made that the program costs about $22 million. I have here the Forest Service budget submission for the coming fiscal year as well as data on fiscal years 2004 and 2005. For this region's two forests, Chugach and Tongass--there is no forest, paper, or timber program in the Chugach, so we have two line items. One is forest products, $23.342 million. The other is roads, $22.325 million. That adds up to more than $45 million in their budget estimate for fiscal year 2005. If you look at fiscal year 2004, forest products is $27.379 million and roads is $21.273 million. That adds up to nearly $49 million. And if you look at the coming fiscal year, fiscal year 2006, the budget request for forest products is $21.462 million and for roads it is $17.306 million. That adds up to almost $39 million.

I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

I yield our remaining time to the Senator from Wisconsin.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment. I had an opportunity to present more complete remarks last night so I will try to speak briefly this evening.

I appreciate the work of both Senators from Alaska and understand that this is naturally an issue of great personal interest and commitment for them.

I wanted to address briefly a few of the general remarks that were made, especially those, for obvious reasons, that referred to me. First, I do not think I have ever been accused of being an extreme environmentalist. I certainly do not consider myself an extreme environmentalist.

In that regard, I believe one simply has to look at the basic premise of this amendment. It does not create a new wilderness designation. For my part, I have opposed President Clinton's roadless initiative. I have supported the multiuse concept in national forest land across the entire country and will continue to do so. So I just do not think it is fair or appropriate to throw around a label like that cavalierly, and I trust that it was not meant that way.

Second, I emphasize the point that from my perspective, this is about fiscal responsibility and fiscal restraint.

The suggestion was made a number of times that it was not. Frankly, I do not think that is quite appropriate because it suggests a set of motives that just are not there.

One does not have to go any further than the amendment I offered last week to the Energy bill to strike some of the more egregious taxpayer subsidies in that Energy legislation or my vote against the highway bill that broke the budget or my vote against a prescription drug bill that we knew then and we know now had costs far in excess of its prescribed $400 billion or my vote against the Energy bill in its final form today. I believe it is fair to stand on my record that the votes I have cast, the amendments I have offered of this type that have dealt with taxpayer subsidies, have all been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is doing what I believe is appropriate and right when we are handling taxpayer resources.

In the case of the support and the subsidies that go to private logging firms, I believe we have to draw a line somewhere. When we look at the Tongass and see $49 million in costs for a timber program that yields for the taxpayers $800,000 in revenues, something is not right. The opponents of the amendment will say: Well, only $15 million, $20 million, or $25 million is going directly for the cost of building roads. But in my book, $25 million for $800,000 in revenue is still a pretty bad deal.

There are a lot of reasons listed for the high cost of a timber program on the national forests, and I am very sympathetic to many of the concerns raised: high legal costs, an unbearable bureaucracy, regulatory costs associated with not just completing, in some cases, redundant environmental studies but then defending them in court. I am willing and I have voted in the past to support efforts to deal directly with those costs and to support efforts to allow appropriate consideration, but deliberate consideration, of those challenges. I will continue to do so.

Because there are such things as frivolous lawsuits that are in the pipeline does not justify a $15 million subsidy or a $25 million subsidy or a $35 million subsidy or a $48 million subsidy. The subsidy itself cannot and should not be used to defend or respond to bad behavior in other ways. So we need to fight those costs, the legal abuses, and burdensome environmental regulations

that are not appropriately applied, but those issues are separate from the question of whether we should use taxpayer funds to subsidize the construction of roads to support private timber firms.

Again, I come back to the basic point that this is about fiscal responsibility. When I hear that phrase, ``this is not about fiscal responsibility,'' it really has to be read as questioning my motives or, frankly, the motives of any of those who are supporting this amendment. I do not think the Senate floor is the appropriate place for that kind of a question.

The facts are pretty straightforward. In fiscal year 2004, the timber program on the Tongass cost $49 million, and $800,000 was yielded in revenues. That does not mean that profitability as applied to a private firm should be the standard for any multiuse effort or any effort to harvest timber on national forest lands because we know national forest lands are unique, and we know that the Forest Service has to be involved in doing things that many private timber firms either cannot or would not be asked to do in the private sector. So I recognize that.

The Senator from Alaska made a point that the loss in New Hampshire in the timber program was about $800,000. If so, I would hope that over time we can do better than that in my state, but there is a big difference between $800,000 and $48 million. The disparity of cost or the costs associated per million board feet taken out are similarly quite significant, the loss per million board feet in New Hampshire being approximately one-third of that in the Tongass in data that I have seen.

So profit should not be the standard, but at the same time it is hard for me to justify taxpayers paying the cost of the roads. I do not think asking private firms to pay for the cost of building the roads to access the timber they purchase is too much of a burden to bear.

Finally, with regard to the multiuse concept that was mentioned, I strongly support the development and application of forest plans that are put together locally using local stakeholders. It has been very successful in New Hampshire. I imagine it has been successful in other parts of the country. In New Hampshire, we enjoy national forest lands for recreation, hunting, fishing, economic interests, and a timber management program. But even where multiple use is concerned, we need to strike a balance, a balance between the taxpayers' interest and a balance between the long-term health of the forest itself. Where the taxpayers are concerned, a subsidy of $45 million or $48 million per year, stretching as far as the eye can see at this particular time, is unnecessary.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I hope this at least can lay the foundation for looking at subsidies not just in this industry but in other areas with a little bit of a sharper eye. At a time when we have $300 billion or $400 billion deficits, I do not think there is any area of the budget that does not deserve tougher scrutiny.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my behalf, but also on behalf of Senator Bingaman, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators McCain and Feingold be added as cosponsors.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. It reads very

simply: To place a restriction on the use of Federal taxpayer funds to be used to build logging roads in the Tongass National Forest on behalf of private companies. This is a case where we need to be very careful about providing Federal subsidies for private corporations.

This was a topic of discussion during some of the remarks I made on the Energy bill and I have raised this issue many times in the past. We need to be careful about using Federal resources to provide subsidies for private companies because it distorts the marketplace, promotes inefficiencies, and isn't good stewardship of Federal resources.

In 2004, the Federal Government, through the Forest Service, spent between $45 and $50 million building logging roads in this segment of the national forest. They took in roughly $1 million in revenues. I would like to make sure we give the benefit of the doubt any time we are spending money. We understand it can have economic impacts, it can create jobs and the like, but to spend $45 or $50 million on programs that provide $1 million in revenues when there is a timber sale seems like an enormous inequity to me. If you compound these shortfalls over 20 years, the losses amount to between $750 and $850 million. I don't think this is an appropriate use of Federal resources.

I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Bingaman. I hope it will restore a little bit of fiscal restraint and balance to this Interior appropriations bill. It is important to recognize what this amendment does not do because, as the debate is carried forward, I want to make sure that concerns raised speak to the amendment and not to other issues.

What this amendment does not do is prohibit logging in the Tongass or any other segment of our national forest. It doesn't change policy regarding logging in any substantive way. It doesn't curtail uses in the national forest, again, in the Tongass or anywhere else in the country. I come from a State, New Hampshire, that has a great tradition of multiple use in our national forest system--recreational use, economic operations, timber program, hunting, fishing. It is a true multiuse forest. I believe that general approach to our national forest makes the most sense.

Finally, this amendment does not restrict the use of private funds to build logging roads. I don't think that is inappropriate in any way. If we have a timber sale on any segment of the national forest, that should be conducted in an open, transparent way, but the market should dictate the attractiveness of a particular cut, the sale of that timber, the pricing, and the like.

People who speak to this amendment may well raise concerns about regulation, about legal barriers and legal obstacles, about subsidies that other timber concerns in other countries may enjoy. Those are all valid concerns. I have stepped forward to try to address those concerns to allow timber management, an important segment of our economy, to operate in a fair and reasonable way. But this amendment doesn't address or solve or make worse any of those concerns. Those are issues that we need to continue to address. We should have reasonable regulatory processes that are understandable, that allow appropriate timber sales and logging operations to continue on national forest land. We should do everything in our power to minimize frivolous lawsuits throughout our economy but also those types of frivolous lawsuits that might necessarily hinder and raise the cost of the timber program. And, of course, there are subsidies being provided by other countries. New Hampshire and Canada share a border, and the issue of subsidies in the timber industry--placing operations in the United States at a competitive disadvantage--is something that I have dealt with time and time again.

But all this amendment does is say we will no longer use Federal funds to support the building, construction, and planning and development of roads for private entities in the Tongass. When you have a cost of $45 or $50 million for revenue of just $1 million, you don't have to be an economist to understand why this amendment makes good, common sense for the taxpayer.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been endorsed by a number of groups who are looking at this matter from a purely fiscal perspective and doing what is right for taxpayers. It reflects much more commonsense use of Federal resources.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1029

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Wyden. This is a very comprehensive energy bill. As I have said before on this floor and outside this Chamber, I think it is probably much too comprehensive an energy bill; there is too much in it; it is too large; it spends too much money. There are authorizations. There is mandatory spending. We, unfortunately, voted to waive the budget limitations in our budget resolution earlier today. There is an $11 billion tax package that creates all manner of incentives and subsidies for producing energy.

It is time that we exercise just a little bit of restraint, and the amendment I offer this afternoon with Senator Wyden would do just that in one particular area, and that is in the area of loan guarantees for building new powerplants.

We need a competitive energy sector including nuclear power, coal, gas, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. And we should do everything possible to establish a competitive marketplace that avoids trying to pick winners and losers in that energy production marketplace. Unfortunately, in too many areas, this bill fails to do so.

In particular, this title provides loan guarantees--taxpayer subsidized loan guarantees--for building new privately owned powerplants. That simply is not sound economic policy, sound fiscal policy, or sound energy policy. They could be coal plants. They could be nuclear plants. They could be renewable energy plants.

Over the course of the 5-year authorization in this bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that nearly $4 billion worth of loan guarantees will be offered at a cost to the taxpayers of $400 million. But the potential cost could be much higher because the Federal Government and the taxpayers would be on the hook for the full subsidy, the full cost of those loans.

The Congressional Budget Office says the following in their report on the Energy bill:

Under the bill, the Department of Energy could sell,

manage, or hire contractors to take over a facility to recoup

losses in the event of a default or it could take over a loan

and make payments on behalf of the borrowers.

These are private sector borrowers.

Such payments could result in the Department of Energy--

That is the Federal Government and the taxpayers--

effectively providing a direct loan with as much as a 100-

percent subsidy rate.

That just is not sound economic policy. The administration, through its budget office, states that ``the administration is concerned about the potential cost of the bill's new Department of Energy programs to provide 100 percent federally guaranteed loans for a wide range of commercial or near commercial technologies.''

Therein lies the heart of the problem. We are subsidizing, providing loan guarantees for privately owned and operated and profitable powerplants, whether coal or nuclear or renewable energy. It is not sound economic policy. Our amendment simply strikes this portion of the bill.

There is still $11 billion in tax subsidies to every conceivable kind of energy production. There is still an 8-billion-gallon mandate to purchase ethanol and it still contains a taxpayer subsidy for ethanol. This does not touch the electricity title. It does not touch the authorization for the clean coal technologies or fossil fuel research and development or other areas in the bill that provide subsidies to successful private companies. We are just trying to target this loan guarantee which just does not make any sense. It would be a new program. It is a terrible precedent, putting the taxpayers on the hook for billion-dollar loans to successful private profitable corporations.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by a number of taxpayer groups concerned about the size and scope of Government--Taxpayers for Common Sense and National Taxpayers Union. It also is supported by the Sierra Club and a host of other environmental groups that are focused on good environmental policy as well as good energy policy.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, let me respond briefly just to a couple of points there. There was a lot of discussion at the end of Senator Alexander's remarks about the credit law and scoring and the suggestion that this scores at zero.

This scores at zero cost, as we stand here on the Senate floor, because no loans have been issued. So, obviously, it scores at zero. To say that, and to suggest to the American taxpayers that there won't be any liability or any cost to this program is absolutely outrageous.

This is a program that does authorize, No. 1, no limit of the number of loans that could be offered; no limit in the total principal that could be put at risk. The Congressional Budget Office estimates $3.75 billion in loans over the 5 years. Yes, when you use our credit law, that would mean $400 million in appropriations. But to say it scores at nothing, as if this is a program with no cost or risk to the taxpayer, is absolutely misleading.

We need to be clearer about what this program really does and does not do. There are no limits on the number of projects, no limits on the principal that could be guaranteed, and it certainly does authorize a program that puts the taxpayers at risk.

At this time I yield to my cosponsor on this amendment, Senator Wyden.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, first I apologize to my colleague, Senator Schumer of New York. It was just a slip of the tongue by the Senator from Idaho, I am sure. Senator Schumer may be in trouble if he is easily confused with me when he goes back home to New York.

No offense taken, but I would say, lightheartedly, that you might wish to apologize to the Senator from New York.

If the owners of these powerplants were paying the risk premium, then the Congressional Budget Office would not estimate that in the year 2006 there will have to be $85 million in appropriated taxpayer resources to support this program; or, in 2007, $85 million; or 2008, $85 million; or 2009, $85 million; or 2010, $60 million. The owners of these powerplants are not picking up the risk. That money will have to be appropriated because there will be risks borne by the Federal Government, by the taxpayer, when these loans are issued. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand how the program operates.

With regard to technology, let me close in response on this broad point of our concerns for technology. I also would like to see new and innovative technologies brought to the market. Only, when I talk about the importance of those new technologies, I then do not hesitate to say I have confidence in the engineers and scientists and investors and financial people, working in the solar industry and nuclear industry and coal industry, to continue to develop new ideas and new technologies. I am not so arrogant, as an elected representative, or someone here in Washington, to think that only someone working in the Department of Energy in Washington, DC, can know or understand what kind of technologies are deserving of a billion-dollar loan subsidy or a $500 million loan guarantee.

That is the problem with this kind of a program. It presumes that the only people who understand technology and innovation and how it might make a contribution to our energy markets and our environment reside in Washington. That is wrong.

We need more competitive markets. We need to do something about the costs of regulation, but we do not need to put the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for privately owned and operated powerplants that are operated by successful, profitable corporations. I wish them well, I want to see them compete, but I do not want to put taxpayers on the hook for the cost.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that is endorsed and supported by those concerned about the cost to the Federal budget as well as those concerned about the environment.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, there are nearly $4 billion in estimated loan guarantees over the next 5 years in this title. Those absolutely will cost the Federal Government something. That is exactly why money, $400 million, has to be appropriated to support them.

I was pleased to work on this amendment with Senator Wyden to whom I yield the remainder of my time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the winners of the 2005 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. These awards, otherwise known as the ``ED''ies, are given to those individuals and schools that have exhibited the highest standards of excellence in curriculum and instruction, teaching and learning process, student achievement, leadership and decision-making, community and parental involvement, and school climate.

On June 4, 2005, 30 individuals, 2 school boards and 6 schools were recognized for their leadership and outstanding dedication in preparing their students for our rapidly changing workplace. I am honored to lend my voice to those of their colleagues, students, and communities in conveying our appreciation and respect for the professionals they are and the sacrifices and contributions they make every day in classrooms throughout the Granite State.

Nominees consist of some of New Hampshire's finest teachers and community leaders. They are carefully reviewed by selection committees that apply standards developed by The Board of Directors for the New Hampshire Excellence in Education Awards. Nominees come from elementary, middle and secondary schools, as well as higher education. Many are honored in specific categories of excellence such as art education, world languages, school nursing, counseling and technology.

As a student in Salem, I was privileged to have had many great teachers at every level of my education. Today, as a parent looking back on that experience, I see even more clearly the great impact they've had on my life. Not only did they provide an environment conducive to learning, but each in their own way provided me with the direction necessary to succeed.

Like the classroom heroes I knew growing up in Salem, the group of educators chosen this year for the ``ED''ies have demonstrated superior dedication and service to their students, schools and communities. They richly deserve this prestigious honor for the important roles they play in helping our children reach their goals and succeed in school. The teachers, principals, counselors, librarians and other school leaders being commended this year have provided students with the tools

they need to become productive and engaged citizens, and have been some of our State's most treasured role models--setting positive examples for the children that surround them, teaching personal responsibility and hard work, and shaping the character of young minds. For these achievements, our State and our country owe them a great deal of gratitude.

Since being elected to Congress in 1996, I have been ever mindful that I am a beneficiary of the State of New Hampshire's public education system. A system that is an exemplary model due in large measure to the contributions and leadership of the many educators and schools being recognized this year. I am confident that the success we enjoy in our State is due to their efforts.

Mr. President, I ask that the list of the 2005 New Hampshire Excellence in Education Award winners be printed in Record.

The list follows.

2005 NH Excellence in Education Awards Recipients

Londonderry School Board

Seabrook School Board

Dr. Marilyn Brannigan

Barbara Brennan

William Church

MaryAnn Connors-Krikorian

Kathleen Custer

Cynthia Dow

Deborah Gibson

Heidi E. Hale Miller

Elizabeth A. Hansel

Kathryn G. Hanson

Bernard Keenan

Mary Alyce Knightly

Lise Lemieux

Jay Lewis

Shelley Lochhead

Steve Lord

Suzanne Lull

Meg Maroni

Maria Matarazzo

Terrence McKenzie

Marie H. Mellin

Michele Munson

Jane M. Murray

Dr. Charles Ott

Robert Pedersen

David St. Jean

Barbara Szabunka

Randy Wormald

Linda A. Wright

Dr. Phyllis Scrocco Zrzavy

Schools

Dover High School

South Meadow Middle School

Golden Brook School

The Whitefield School

School Finalists

Holderness Central School

Dunbarton Elementary School

Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden in the introduction of this legislation, which is a good-faith effort to try to find that fresh approach Senator Wyden talked about, a fresh approach to deal with costs in health care, specifically in those areas where the Federal Government is directly purchasing pharmaceuticals: in the VA, where we have a very large direct purchase program that exists today, and within Medicaid, where both the Federal Government and the States are directly involved in purchasing and negotiating the pricing of drugs.

We are focusing on direct-to-consumer advertising. This is an area where activity and cost have exploded over the last 6 or 7 years. Since 1997, when the Federal Government changed the regulations associated with direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen advertising outlays for pharmaceuticals go from a little bit over $1 billion to nearly $5 billion per year this year. Those costs, as any costs would be, are passed on to consumers. In the case of these programs where the Federal Government is purchasing the pharmaceuticals in the VA and in Medicaid, that means that the cost, the impact, is disproportionately felt by the taxpayer.

This is an effort to try to find a way to reduce those costs, to give the Federal Government the power to make a distinction, as they negotiate prices--to make a distinction between those drugs that are advertised directly to consumers or marketed directly to consumers and those that are not, and to provide discounts to those companies or those drugs that avoid the additional costs of advertising.

This advertising, as I say, is expensive. The cost is passed on to taxpayers in these particular programs. I think there are also a lot of questions about the value that a flood of advertising might provide.

We have all been inundated by different types of advertisement, on TV or in magazines. It is costly, as I mentioned, but it also carries with it some risk of overutilization; of, in some cases, encouraging or leading consumers to believe that they need or would benefit by a particular medicine when it is not necessarily the best approach for them.

In some cases it is clear this advertising has been used to drive consumers away from lower priced generic drugs. I think this is one of the most problematic areas, and that has been seen and discussed at some length in the States, in their Medicaid programs.

This legislation presents an opportunity to get our hands around the cost issue, to fund some important studies, to take a closer look at questions of overutilization and the substitution I described. It represents a good start, I think, opening the debate with this discussion about dealing directly with health care costs in areas of the Federal Government as the principal purchaser.

There may be other options. In fact, Senator Wyden and I talked about a few other approaches that are not included in this legislation. I think I can speak for the Senator from Oregon when I say we look forward to talking to our colleagues about other ideas that might be out there. We look forward to sharing ideas and information with producers themselves who, I hope, are willing to look at ways to help save the consumers money, help save taxpayers money, and help deal with direct-to-consumer advertising in a more responsible way.

We are going to do a Medicaid bill this year in the Senate. While we also deal with some issues at HHS and the VA in this bill, certainly the costs associated with Medicaid and our recommendations with regard to Medicaid are a central part of the bill. I will work with Senator Wyden and any of my interested colleagues to try to include and capture some of these ideas in Medicaid legislation this year.

It is a great opportunity to look at the issue of health costs and drug costs in a fresh way, in a different way. I very much appreciate the work Senator Wyden has done in helping to craft this legislation and his willingness to lend his strong support, as a longstanding and more senior Member than I, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a Member of the Senate on the other side of the aisle.

Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden in the introduction of this legislation, which is a good-faith effort to try to find that fresh approach Senator Wyden talked about, a fresh approach to deal with costs in health care, specifically in those areas where the Federal Government is directly purchasing pharmaceuticals: in the VA, where we have a very large direct purchase program that exists today, and within Medicaid, where both the Federal Government and the States are directly involved in purchasing and negotiating the pricing of drugs.

We are focusing on direct-to-consumer advertising. This is an area where activity and cost have exploded over the last 6 or 7 years. Since 1997, when the Federal Government changed the regulations associated with direct-to-consumer advertising, we have seen advertising outlays for pharmaceuticals go from a little bit over $1 billion to nearly $5 billion per year this year. Those costs, as any costs would be, are passed on to consumers. In the case of these programs where the Federal Government is purchasing the pharmaceuticals in the VA and in Medicaid, that means that the cost, the impact, is disproportionately felt by the taxpayer.

This is an effort to try to find a way to reduce those costs, to give the Federal Government the power to make a distinction, as they negotiate prices--to make a distinction between those drugs that are advertised directly to consumers or marketed directly to consumers and those that are not, and to provide discounts to those companies or those drugs that avoid the additional costs of advertising.

This advertising, as I say, is expensive. The cost is passed on to taxpayers in these particular programs. I think there are also a lot of questions about the value that a flood of advertising might provide.

We have all been inundated by different types of advertisement, on TV or in magazines. It is costly, as I mentioned, but it also carries with it some risk of overutilization; of, in some cases, encouraging or leading consumers to believe that they need or would benefit by a particular medicine when it is not necessarily the best approach for them.

In some cases it is clear this advertising has been used to drive consumers away from lower priced generic drugs. I think this is one of the most problematic areas, and that has been seen and discussed at some length in the States, in their Medicaid programs.

This legislation presents an opportunity to get our hands around the cost issue, to fund some important studies, to take a closer look at questions of overutilization and the substitution I described. It represents a good start, I think, opening the debate with this discussion about dealing directly with health care costs in areas of the Federal Government as the principal purchaser.

There may be other options. In fact, Senator Wyden and I talked about a few other approaches that are not included in this legislation. I think I can speak for the Senator from Oregon when I say we look forward to talking to our colleagues about other ideas that might be out there. We look forward to sharing ideas and information with producers themselves who, I hope, are willing to look at ways to help save the consumers money, help save taxpayers money, and help deal with direct-to-consumer advertising in a more responsible way.

We are going to do a Medicaid bill this year in the Senate. While we also deal with some issues at HHS and the VA in this bill, certainly the costs associated with Medicaid and our recommendations with regard to Medicaid are a central part of the bill. I will work with Senator Wyden and any of my interested colleagues to try to include and capture some of these ideas in Medicaid legislation this year.

It is a great opportunity to look at the issue of health costs and drug costs in a fresh way, in a different way. I very much appreciate the work Senator Wyden has done in helping to craft this legislation and his willingness to lend his strong support, as a longstanding and more senior Member than I, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a Member of the Senate on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 3 minutes off the time controlled by the majority.

I want to make sure that is all right with the minority manager.

For the timing of the next amendment to be offered. I thought I might be speak for up to 3 minutes to ensure that everything has been----

Mr. President, I wanted to speak briefly to the concerns raised by the previous speaker, and in particular the three grave concerns with regard to Social Security. I take issue with those three items. The first one of the three items was that any Social Security reform proposal, modernization proposal as envisioned by the President, would result from massive amounts of debt. That is wrong in part but, even worse, it is misleading.

The reason to take up Social Security reform legislation, which I have introduced in the previous session and will introduce again, is so we avoid $12 trillion of unfunded debt that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with if we don't act now.

To suddenly say we can't deal with Social Security because we are worried about debt is simply a smokescreen, and it is a smokescreen that refuses to recognize the reality that under the current structure we have a huge unfunded debt our children and grandchildren will be stuck with.

Second, there was a suggestion that personal accounts for younger workers, an optional system of personal accounts would result in huge administrative costs.

This is absolutely ridiculous, and every bit of evidence from any similar plan, similar account, similar fund argues against such a suggestion. The Thrift Savings Plan, which is probably the best model of the kind of personal accounts envisioned by the President in legislation that I have introduced, has 3.5 million members. Under Social Security, there would be significantly more than that. The administrative costs are less than two-tenths of 1 percent.

So to suggest that administrative costs would be exorbitantly high--I see

numbers of 1 percent or 2 percent thrown out--is wrong. There is no evidence, no model to suggest that would be even close to the truth. Third, the suggestion that any kind of a personal account proposal would require deep benefit cuts is again at best misleading, but at worst it is an effort to scare retirees and those who are near retirement. It is simply wrong.

I have introduced legislation which is scored by the Social Security actuary that makes the system solvent, is scored as bringing the system into balance permanently and has significant personal accounts and does not require benefit cuts.

There are a lot of proposals out there that involve changes to the current system, or even changes to benefits for, say, those at the higher income level, but to suggest that deep cuts are required is simply misleading the American public.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Kennedy amendment. I appreciate very much the Senator's remarks and his commitment and passion on this issue, but I did want to make a couple of brief points before Senator Santorum, who is offering an alternative, has a chance to talk about the provisions of his amendment.

While I appreciate the belief of the Senator from Massachusetts, I do think it is important to take a step back and allow this debate to include a sense of what the deeply held concerns are about raising the minimum wage, because it is not all a single-sided story. I do not support the Kennedy amendment because I do not support raising the minimum wage, and the reason is as follows: When the minimum wage is raised, workers are priced out of the market. That is the economic reality that seems to be missing, at least so far, from this discussion.

When the minimum wage is raised, some workers are priced out of the labor market, and we could have a discussion about how many are priced out of the market, what mechanisms we might have to deal with that fact, but it is an economic fact and the proponents of raising the minimum wage like to dismiss this by saying, well, we have a hard time measuring it, or the economy is large, or we have not been able to measure significant increases in inflation as a result of increasing the minimum wage.

I am not talking about inflation necessarily or economic growth. I am talking about the workers themselves who are priced out of the market, and if one does not believe that or they want to dismiss the economics, think about this: If there was not an economic impact, why are we not debating raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour?

Well, the answer is obvious. Because if the minimum wage were raised to $20 an hour, even the proponents of the Kennedy amendment would have to admit it would be cost prohibitive. Thousands, if not millions, of people would be priced out of the market. The number of jobs would shrink. Certainly the number of entry level jobs would be reduced.

Oh, but they say, we are not proposing raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour because we know that is not a good idea. Well, then why are they not proposing to raise it to $10 an hour? Because at $10 an hour they would still have to admit the negative economic effects on prices and on the total number of jobs, especially those at the entry level that would be priced out of the market. So instead they seek a lower level where the negative consequences are much more difficult to measure but they still exist, because it is an economic fact of life that when the minimum wage is raised, people are being priced out of the markets.

The same economic fact is true for $8, $7, or $6 an hour. People are being priced out of the market. I think this is most disturbing because those priced out of the market are the very ones who most need the opportunity. They are entry level workers. They are first-time job seekers. They are people making the transition from welfare to work and they are teenagers experiencing their first time in the labor force. They are the ones who most need that job opportunity to build a foundation to develop the experience that will enable them to earn even more money in the future.

If one does not believe that, they can go to any small business and ask them if they are hiring in at minimum wage--and there are very few firms that do hire in at minimum wage, but if they do, how long those employees actually earn at the minimum wage level. It is not long because once a person has shown 3, 4 or 6 months of ability in a role with an employer, their value has been proven and they are very quickly going to move above whatever the entry level threshold was.

Those who are going to be priced out of the labor market by an increase in the minimum wage are those who most

need that first job opportunity, and that is why I strongly disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts and his amendment. The impact may be small, and our economy is $11 trillion. It may only be 10 jobs that are affected or 20,000 or 30,000 who never get that first job opportunity at a job. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to measure 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 jobs in an economy the size of America's, but it is there. The economic consequences are real. Again, if one does not believe it, if they believe there are no economic consequences, then they should be willing to step down to the Senate floor and offer an amendment to raise the minimum wage to $20 or $30. Or why even stop there?

One final point I do want to make is in regard to a phrase that was used by the Senator from Massachusetts. It was a question or a phrase about rewarding work. The question was whether we were willing to stand up in the Congress or, I suppose, the Senate in particular, and reward work by supporting an increase in the minimum wage.

I have a concern about this phrase because it suggests that as Federal legislators it is our job to reward work. That may sound nice, but it suggests that it is our job to set prices, that it is our job to set wages, that it is our job to decide whether the work any citizen is doing in the economy, in the private sector, is worth a particular amount of money, whose work is worth more than someone else's and what kind of rewards does the Federal Government give the taxpayer for doing their job. That is not the role of the Federal Government. We should not be deciding who gets rewarded for work, whose work is of value and whose work is not of value.

In fact, there are few countries left on Earth where the central government has the responsibility of rewarding work in and of itself, and those are countries such as Cuba and North Korea that decide only the federal government should be able to determine what one earns or does not earn, how much one can charge and or not charge for a given good. Our job is to pass good legislation that creates an economic environment where people have incentives to commit capital to start businesses to create economic opportunity and to create jobs and a good quality of life.

It sounds nice to say we should reward work in the Senate, but the only way to do that in passing Federal legislation is to start and to try to set wages, to try to set prices, and to try to control the levers of the economy. We have seen where that slippery slope can be taken. We do not have to look farther than the former Soviet Union and the former eastern European countries that have rejected that kind of centralized state economy.

I appreciate the passion and the commitment of those on the other side. I think they are wrong on the economics because the economics hurt the very individuals who most need these entry level, first-time job opportunities. They are certainly wrong with the idea that setting prices for labor, setting prices for goods and deciding whose work has value and whose work does not have value should start in Washington, D.C. That is not the way our market economy works.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I believe the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators both endorsed the Senate version of this language over the House version because, among other things, the Senate version provided the flexibility and partnership between the Federal and State governments. Is this an accurate portrayal of their position?

I thank the Senator.

I would also like to ask a follow-up question to the Senator from Connecticut. Although the conference report does not specify any particular group or organization to be included on the rulemaking committee, it is certainly expected that privacy and civil liberties groups, along with organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators would play an important role in the rulemaking process. I would ask my colleague from Connecticut if I understand this provision correctly?

I thank the Chair.

It is a pleasure to stand in support of the intelligence reform bill.

In my remarks today in support of the bill, I want to first emphasize that there is no real way we can know exactly and precisely what all of the benefits might eventually occur due to the reforms made by this bill. I think both the House and Senate went through a good-faith effort to try to develop a better, a better intelligence organization, better rules for sharing information than we currently have, changes that conform in many ways to some of the difficulties identified, and recommendations made by the September 11 Commission. But the real motivator for reform I think began even prior to September 11.

I think the impetus for change in our intelligence organization begins with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of terrorism--now the greatest national security threat that faces America and our allies--and concerns over the proliferation of weapons technology to terrorists around the world. That was obviously brought to the forefront with the attacks of September 11. But the fact that we have a new set of threats and a new set of risks to American security is what calls on us to review the structure of our intelligence agencies and to make the recommendations for change that are embodied in this bill.

With this legislation, we will improve the budget process for intelligence agencies by giving more power and authority to the Director of National Intelligence, the DNI. The DNI will coordinate where the funds and resources should be allocated among the 15 various agencies that have responsibility for intelligence gathering in the United States and around the globe.

We reform the standard of accountability by having an independent Director of National Intelligence. I think there is, to borrow a phrase from the previous speaker, a clearer chain of command for responsibility and accountability in setting priorities and setting goals for the President of the United States and all of those in the Government who rely on our intelligence-gathering operation.

We reform the process of coordinating between these 15 agencies. We have a new counterterrorism Center that will be the central focus for gathering information threats from law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the country.

We now have a much better understanding of the degree with which critical pieces of information can come from local or State law enforcement, and not just from the sophisticated apparatus of a national intelligence organization.

We have to coordinate and collect that information and then disseminate it and do a better job of sharing that information.

A final area of reform I would underscore is that with this legislation we set clear guidelines, a clearer process, and in many ways an easier process, for getting key pieces of information to the decisionmakers that will act on that information.

We saw, unfortunately, time and again in the wake of September 11 moments where there existed important information, but for a variety of reasons that information wasn't placed in the right hands at the right time. So information sharing, as simple as it may sound, is a critical piece of the reform element in this bill.

For all of those reasons, I am very pleased to support the legislation because I think it will create a much better framework for understanding where we are successful and where we need to continue to improve our intelligence gathering. Not every objective, not every goal, will be attained in the next year or the next 2 years. But this organizational structure, the rules for intelligence sharing, this budget process, all will make our intelligence organization much more effective.

A lot of concerns have been raised about the legislation. A lot of people point out the obvious--that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. I don't think anyone has ever come to the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives claiming they had finally written the perfect piece of legislation. But a lot of those criticisms as well are on a weak foundation; concerns, for example, about the process, the speed and the timing with which this legislation was written.

The suggestion was made earlier last month that the Senate had rushed through this piece of legislation, that we moved it through too quickly, that there was not enough time taken for deliberations and hearings. I think of all the criticisms, that is probably the weakest I have heard.

The Chair well knows through a number of hearings we collected information--not just from the September 11 Commission and all the work they did on these issues, not just from the families of those who were lost on September 11, but from intelligence-gathering organizations, from the FBI, from local law enforcement, information that was critical to developing legislation before the Senate today.

The criticism of the process that somehow the conference between the House and Senate was done in secret is simply without foundation. The conference negotiations were extremely inclusive. In many ways I argue they were inclusive because they included me. When the conference negotiations

and the discussion about the final legislative language is inclusive enough to make available a role for the 95th most senior Member of the Senate, it is a pretty inclusive process. There were Democrats in the room at the most sensitive times as well as Republicans. It was bipartisan discussion and negotiation.

Obviously, not everyone got everything they wanted in the final bill. When the process is criticized for being exclusive or it was rushed, that criticism is most often made by someone who just did not quite get everything they wanted in the bill.

There is a criticism that we should have included more immigration or law enforcement provisions. This bill does deal with immigration in a direct and substantive way: increasing customs agents and beds for detainees; better information sharing that will make a huge difference for the INS and for others engaged in securing our borders. But it does not have every provision recommended by the House of Representatives, so it should come as no surprise we will deal with many of these issues, perhaps with a more comprehensive immigration reform bill, in the next session of Congress.

What is in the bill improves the status quo, improves the current situation. That is something for which we can all be pleased.

We have a lot of work to do on oversight in the coming session. We have a lot of work to do to make sure this legislation does what we intended it to do. But it is an outstanding effort. I commend the work of the chairman and the ranking member on the Governmental Affairs Committee as well as the House conferees.