Floor Statements

Madam President, one of the biggest drivers of health care costs today is the cost of prescription drugs. This debate over reauthorization of the FDA has given us an opportunity to really home in on some of the reasons for those high costs of prescription drugs. We say we spend somewhere around $2.2 trillion on health care today or about 16 or 17 percent of our gross domestic product. Of that amount, about 15 to 20 percent of what we spend on health care is for prescription drugs. It is an enormous industry in this country.

Frankly, some remarkable things have happened. We have wonderful therapies that have prolonged life, have improved the quality of life, and for that we can be grateful to those companies which are investing in the research and development that is necessary to bring these types of new therapies and drugs onto the market.

At the same time, we have to be very concerned about the cost of these things. Everybody has to be concerned about that. The taxpayers, who underwrite the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, which is a big part of the cost of health care in this country, have a stake in this debate, as does every consumer who, for prescription drugs--whenever they are diagnosed with something and a doctor prescribes a certain medication, a certain drug, and they have to go get it, obviously that cost is borne by them as consumers and by their health care provider, their insurer. Everybody has a stake in the cost of prescription drugs and doing everything we can to lower their costs, to make them more affordable to average people in this country.

We have an amendment, the Stabenow-Thune-Brown-Lott amendment having to do with citizen petitions, which was just debated. It has been debated. It is under consideration as part of the managers' amendment. I thank the managers, Senators Kennedy and Enzi, for giving us an opportunity to perhaps have it included in the managers' amendment. I think this is an important amendment, one that addresses the issue we are talking about today, the high cost of prescription drugs.

The amendment will reduce the filing of frivolous ``citizen petitions'' that delay entry of generic drugs to the market and unnecessarily increase drug costs for both taxpayers and consumers. My colleague from Michigan, the distinguished Presiding Officer, has discussed this earlier.

A citizen petition is intended to be just that--it is a petition that is filed by an individual or a group in order to raise potential concerns. If you look at what has happened with that, that process has been abused. You can see that even from what the FDA Chief Counsel has said about this process:

These petitions appear designed not to raise timely

concerns with respect to the legality or scientific soundness

of approving a drug application, but rather to delay

approval.

What has happened in this process is it has become hijacked and is being used for purposes for which it was not intended.

Under current FDA regulations, the simple act of filing a petition, no matter how meritorious or frivolous that petition may be, automatically delays the approval of a generic drug. Under current regulations, there is no risk or cost associated with filing a citizen petition. Yet the benefit to a brand-name company in maintaining their market share for even a few months is enormous.

I want to show another chart which I think further defines why there is so much advantage for a company to use this process in a frivolous way, to delay the introduction of generic drugs into the marketplace. Take Flonase, for example. The delay caused by using the citizen petition was 645 days. During that period, the additional sales that were generated were over $1 billion--$1.6 billion. If you look at DuoNeb, another drug, 420 days' delay yielded $262.5 million additional revenue generated during that delay period.

The amendment will allow the FDA to verify that citizen petitions are legitimate by requiring applicants to verify that they have not received compensation from another organization to file such a petition. It will also prohibit delays of generic drug approvals unless the FDA determines within the first 25 days that a petition is filed that the petition raises a genuine public health concern. This amendment helps to remove the incentive for drug companies to file unnecessary or illegitimate citizen petitions.

Even the FDA has said the citizen petition process is inefficient and is often abused by pharmaceutical companies. This is troubling to me because the rising cost of prescription drugs is one of the largest drivers, as I said earlier, of health care costs in our country today. These costs contribute directly to the rising cost of health insurance premiums for families and small businesses and the cost to all taxpayers for what we pay for Medicare and Medicaid.

As a Member of the House of Representatives in 2002, I sponsored legislation that would help speed access to lower cost generics. Back then, one of the major issues of concern to Congress and consumers was the automatic 30-month stay brand-name companies could request whenever a challenge was raised to the patent. FDA regulations at the time essentially allowed a pharmaceutical company to ask the FDA for an unlimited number of 30-month stays as generics sought entry into the market, effectively delaying their approval. Now we are looking at yet another loophole the industry has found to delay access to lower cost generic drugs.

Access to generic drugs is one crucial part of the solution to controlling prescription drug costs. As I said earlier, in overall health care costs, what continues to increase over time is the cost of prescription drugs. As I said earlier, there are also some wonderful therapies, some medications that were brought onto the market that are doing remarkable things for health care in this country. But there is also a long period where drug companies that develop these types of medications and therapies have the exclusive right to market those. During that period, they have an opportunity to recover the cost of the research and development that goes into that particular drug. But there is a point at which that period comes to an end. When that period comes to an end and it is opened to competition, then other generic drug manufacturers can enter the marketplace. What you generally see happen is drug costs go down dramatically when competition takes hold.

I am a big believer in the market. The market works when there is competition. What we will need, if we want to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs and the impact they are having in driving health care costs in this country, is to create more competition in the marketplace.

What this particular loophole does, the citizen petition loophole, is it allows drug companies to take advantage and in a frivolous way use something that was intended for legitimate purposes; that is, to allow citizens to challenge this process, to extend the period in which they can continue to exclusively market a drug to the tune literally of billions and billions of dollars of additional cost. That is wrong.

The amendment we have introduced--the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, Senator Brown, Senator Lott, myself--would simply bring some clarity to this and make sure, when the FDA has an opportunity to determine, to take a look at these citizen petitions, that petition does, in fact, raise a genuine public health concern. I believe this amendment will help remove the incentive drug companies have to file unnecessary or illegitimate citizen petitions in order to continue to reap some of these profits and take advantage of a loophole that exists today that needs to be closed.

I hope the managers of the bill, those who have been working with us throughout the course of this process, will find their way to accept this amendment into the managers' package, allow it to be adopted as part of the FDA reauthorization and to do something that in a very significant and meaningful way will address what is a serious problem in America today; that is, the high cost of health care which is driving more and more people into the ranks of the uninsured, becoming a higher cost and burden on small businesses, and, as I said earlier, a big component of that cost of health care is the cost of prescription drugs.

I think this amendment, along with others we have debated here today as well--and I happen to support allowing for the reimportation of drugs from Canada and Europe and places such as that, which will help bring drug costs down in this country--these things will all add competition to the marketplace. Competition drives down costs, it drives down costs for consumers, it drives down costs for taxpayers. That is a good thing. This particular amendment closes a loophole that needs to be closed that will bring about lower costs for consumers in this country.

I thank the sponsors and the managers of the legislation for their cooperation and willingness to work with us, and I hope in the end we can have this amendment adopted and do something that is serious and meaningful in terms of eliminating unnecessary delays in allowing for generic drug approvals, getting them into the marketplace, and driving down the cost of prescription drugs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor a distinguished law enforcement officer for her service and dedication to our Nation. After nearly 24 years, Ms. Rachel R. Klay recently retired as a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service.

Agent Klay was born in Orange City, IA, which, I might add, is just across the border from my home State of South Dakota. After graduating from Northwestern College in Orange City, she then went on to graduate school at Sangamon State University in Springfield, IL.

On September 6, 1983, Rachel was sworn in as a Special Agent with the United States Secret Service and assigned to the Chicago Field Office, where she served with distinction for 4 years. During the course of her career, Agent Klay also served at the Secret Service's Western Protective Division, the Washington Field Office, the Presidential Protective Division, the Liaison Division, and the Investigative Support Division.

From 1999 to 2002, she worked as a Resident Agent in Sioux Falls, SD. She then served in the Secret Service's Liaison Division before retiring earlier this year to take employment at the Federal Reserve Board as a Senior Special Agent.

Over the past decade, I have had the pleasure of getting to know Agent Klay and have had the opportunity to see her in action, both in South Dakota and here in Washington, DC. While always quick with a smile and a friendly demeanor, she also exuded the professionalism, confidence, and courage associated with the tremendous responsibilities she bore as a Special Agent with the Secret Service. Simply put, our country is better, stronger, and safer because of her service.

It is important and fitting that we as Americans recognize the invaluable contribution made every day by law enforcement officers such as Agent Klay. These dedicated professionals put their lives on the line to investigate crimes and protect us and our families. Law enforcement officers such as Agent Klay are the ones who stand guard and preserve our safety. Their tireless efforts, personal sacrifices, and dedication to the rule of law are an example of what is right and good about our country and those who serve it.

It is therefore my honor and privilege to pay tribute today to the distinguished career and record of accomplishment provided by Special Agent Rachel Klay. Through her service, she has added to the reputation of integrity and valor of the United States Secret Service, and in doing so has provided an invaluable service to our Nation. On behalf of South Dakota and a grateful nation, I thank Agent Klay for her service and wish her all the best in this new chapter in her life and career.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Wyoming in rising to express my concerns about the budgetary problems the Army and Marine Corps are going to face because the Democratic majority has committed to staging a showdown with the White House instead of fulfilling our obligation to fund the military.

Over 2 months ago, the former Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, testified before the Armed Services Committee that if the Army and Marine Corps do not get the supplemental funding by mid-April, the services will experience a serious cashflow problem and have to take extraordinary measures that will slow down the whole system. On April 11, the Secretary of Defense wrote Congress and stated:

It is a simple fact of life that if the Fiscal Year 2007

supplemental legislation is not enacted soon, the Army faces

a real and serious funding problem that will require

increasingly disruptive and costly measures to be initiated--

measures that will inevitably negatively impact readiness and

Army personnel and their families.

Moreover, on April 19, the Associated Press reported that the $70 billion provided to fight the war has mostly run out. I want to say that again: The $70 billion that the Army needs to fight this war has mostly run out.

In order to stretch their remaining funds through June, the Army is slowing down the purchase of nonessential repair parts. I am not sure what repair parts during a war are nonessential. I guess we will have to leave it to our generals to inform their soldiers that their vehicles are not getting repaired because they are nonessential.

There is important funding in this supplemental. For example, Senator Biden offered an amendment to purchase more mine-resistant, ambush- protected vehicles for our soldiers in the field. I commend Senator Biden for offering this amendment. I commend his commitment to it. Senator Biden said two things with which I wholeheartedly agree. First, he said that providing funding for these vehicles is a moral imperative. Second, he said it was a matter of life and death. I agree. His amendment and the supplemental as a whole represent a moral imperative for every Senator. It is a matter of life and death for our soldiers serving in combat. Yet the Democratic leadership is not handling this issue as a matter of life and death because they are determined to send a bill to the President that he has said he will veto.

As we all know, the President's objection to this bill is the troop withdrawal language that ties our commanders' hands and telegraphs to our enemies the time and place of our surrender. Congress should not and Congress must not get into the habit of interjecting itself into the military chain of command. To do so invites disaster and moves the country from the premise of conducting our military operations with one Commander in Chief and not running it by committee.

I direct some of my comments to some of our colleagues on the other side, primarily the leadership. I have been very concerned and shocked recently to read statements of members of the majority stating that their strategy is to send the President bills he will veto because it is politically advantageous. Some of our colleagues on the other side were quoted as saying recently:

We are going to pick up Senate seats because of this war.

Quoting again:

We will break them, because they [the Republicans] are

looking extinction in the eye.

I would say to my Democratic colleagues, we are not the enemy. If you want to break something, let's break the enemy. Let's break al-Qaida. I am concerned about where this debate is headed.

I have to tell my colleagues, as I have listened to our colleagues talk about this war particularly of late, we have had Democratic leadership saying that the war was lost. If that is true, then who won? Terrorism? Al-Qaida?

Religious extremists who murder the innocent? Or all of the above? If this is a true and accurate representation of the majority's position, it is not surprising that Congress has not sent an emergency supplemental to the President.

I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I have traveled several times to Iraq. I have visited, numerous times, Walter Reed Hospital and the military hospital in Germany. I have to say that I have not talked to one GI who says the war is lost. I have not talked to one injured soldier who says the war is lost. I have not talked to one officer who has said the war is lost. I have not talked to one commander who has said the war is lost. The only place I hear the statement that the war is lost is right here from the Halls of our Nation's Capitol or from news reports from Al-Jazeera or Iranian television quoting the majority leader of the Senate.

Our American soldiers believe they can win. Our American soldiers always believe they can win. That is why they are American soldiers. They are the best. It has to be very disturbing to our American soldiers to constantly hear politicians in Washington, DC, telling them they can't win. The Democratic leadership in Washington is playing a game of roulette with the administration where the only losers will be the American soldier.

We need to focus on providing our troops the equipment and resources they need to win this war. It is a global war. We have to quit acting as if short-term political gains are going to win this war for us. They will not. We need a unified and serious effort on the part of both parties in the Congress to win this war and to keep our Nation secure. History is going to judge us based on how we respond to the crisis of our generation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I honor the South Dakota State University women's basketball team. In only their third season as Division I competitors, the Jackrabbits made it to the quarterfinals of the Women's

National Invitational Tournament. This impressive accomplishment capped off an extremely successful season in which the Jacks finished with a record of 25-6.

The SDSU women's basketball team has a long tradition of postseason success. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Jacks qualified for 10 AIAW regional tournaments. As NCAA Division II competitors, they made nine postseason appearances and won the national title in 2003. Additionally, the Jackrabbits reached the Elite Eight in each of their last three seasons as a Division II team.

In 2004, SDSU transitioned its athletic program to compete in NCAA Division I, becoming the first school in South Dakota to do so. Since this transition, the Jackrabbits women's basketball team has successfully risen to meet the challenge that comes with this new level of competition. By defeating well-known teams with much bigger budgets, this year's team once again proved that SDSU can compete with the top programs in the Nation.

The Jackrabbits were led by Aaron Johnston, who has served as head coach of the SDSU women's basketball team for the past seven seasons. Coach Johnston was responsible for taking the Jacks to the top of NCAA Division II and has shown his strong leadership skills in successfully transitioning the team to Division I. He was the 2006 South Dakota Sportswriters Women's College Basketball Coach of the Year and has been named the Division I Independent Coach of the Year for the past two seasons. Johnston was supported by Assistant Coaches Laurie Melum, Jina Johansen, and Matt Stamerjohn.

Of course, this historic season would be impossible without the players themselves. The athletes of the 2006-2007 South Dakota State University women's basketball team, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Alison Anderson, Maria Boever, Ketty Cornemann, Courtney Grimsrud, Nicole Helsper, Abby Kratovil, Morgan Meier, Ashlea Muckenhirn, Laura Nielsen, Stacie Oistad, Andrea Verdegan, Megan Vogel, and Jennifer Warkenthien.

While all of these women should be commended for their efforts, I would like to especially recognize the team's only senior, Megan Vogel. A 4-year starter, Vogel ended her career as the second leading scorer in SDSU school history with 1,850 career points. During this past season, she led the Jacks in scoring with 17.5 points per game and was chosen as a first-team all-Division I Independent selection for the second time. After participating in the WNBA Pre-Draft Camp, Vogel was chosen as a second round draft pick by the Washington Mystics. Selected as the 19th overall pick, Vogel became the first Jackrabbit and first player from a South Dakota college to be taken in the WNBA draft.

These are just a few of the many firsts that the Jacks accomplished this season. These student-athletes should be very proud of all of their remarkable achievements. On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am pleased to say congratulations Jackrabbits on this impressive accomplishment and keep up the great work.

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

Mr. President, last month I came to the Senate floor to express my doubts about the emergency supplemental spending bill put forth by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.

The supplemental was, and still is, a flawed bill that will do little to advance the cause of either liberty or victory in Iraq. It is a poorly crafted bill that includes language directing the President to begin a phased withdrawal of American troops, essentially tying the hands of the Commander in Chief, and signaling to our enemies that this is the day on which we will wave the white flag and surrender.

Mr. President, the Democrats believe the war in Iraq is a civil war between Sunni and Shia, and that America has no place in their war. I see the war in Iraq as a war between Islamic fascists and everyone else.

Contrary to the belief of many of my Democratic colleagues, we are in the middle of that war, be it in Baghdad, New York, Pennsylvania, Bali, London, or Madrid. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to realize is that diplomacy and the exertion of military force are not mutually exclusive of one another. You can and must have both, and they must be effective.

But it is naive to think that you can have diplomacy in a vacuum, especially when you are dealing with a country such as Iran, a country bent on developing nuclear weapons, increasing its ballistic missile capability, and providing weapons and training to our enemies in Iraq.

However, this is all moot because the Democratic leadership on the war supplemental spending bill has been absent these last couple of weeks. Here we are, almost 3 weeks after the bill was passed in the Senate. There has been no conference of the bill. And the other body, the House of Representatives, has yet to appoint conferees. What are we waiting for? Why are we asking our men and women in uniform to wait?

Well, unfortunately, waiting is what our military is going to do. The Democratic leadership has thus far decided to purposefully send a bill to the White House that they know will be vetoed in order to set up a confrontation with the President to score political points.

I find it ironic that many of the Democrats who are so insistent on micromanaging the war and usurping the power of the President cannot even show up and show the requisite leadership to pass an emergency bill that funds our troops. Our troops deserve more from this Congress.

I hope my colleagues across the aisle will do what is right and get a bill passed that the President can sign into law. If you look at what the consequences of us not acting are, it has been very clear. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said: This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families.

The supplemental is necessary to pay for training and equipping our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the supplemental is not passed by April 15, the military will be forced to consider the following steps: Curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families; stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support predeployment training; reducing the repair work being done at Army depots; delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams to their training rotation; this, in turn, will cause additional units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not ready to take their place; delaying formation of new brigade combat teams; implementation of a civilian hiring freeze; prohibiting the execution of new contracts and service orders, including service orders for training events and facilities; holding or canceling the order of repair parts to nondeployed units in the Army.

These are all things that can result simply because this Congress has not acted in a way that is consistent with what is in the best interest of our men and women in uniform who are serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about the politics of whether we ought to be withdrawing. Of course, as I said, the legislation that has passed both the House and Senate, including time lines for withdrawal, which ties the hands of our Commander in Chief, ties the hands of our generals in the field, sends a very clear message to our troops that we don't believe in their mission, that we don't believe it is possible for them to attain victory. It sends a very clear message to our enemies that on this date certain, we are going to pull out. What does that say to them, other than all they to have do is to wait us out?

Irrespective of where you are on this particular war--I know it is divisive in the United States--when it comes to the fundamental question of making sure our troops have the resources they need to do the job we have asked them to do, to make sure we are supporting the important work they are doing and giving them the impression we believe they can win and that we want them to win, there is nothing more important in the Senate for us to be dealing with. I know there are a lot of important issues the Senate has to deal with. We have an Intelligence authorization bill we are deliberating. We had stem cell research in the last couple of days. We ought to be dealing with issues such as immigration and health care and energy, all issues that are important to the people.

I submit nothing is more important than making sure the men and women in uniform, serving our country in theaters of conflict, have the resources they need to do the job we have asked of them.

Meanwhile, while the House is out of session and has yet to appoint conferees so even our staffs in the House and Senate could get together and begin discussing the differences between the House and Senate bills to get a bill to send to the President, which the President can subsequently veto and send back here so we can have an override vote, which will fail--then we will be right back where we started--the troops don't have any funding. Hopefully, at that point, perhaps, the Democrats in the House and Senate will come to the realization that all these theatrics and shenanigans being played on the floor of the House and Senate are not doing anything but sending a message to our enemies that we are weakening in our resolve and not doing what we need to be doing, and that is funding our troops to make

sure they have the necessary training and equipment and ability to conduct and win this mission we have asked them to complete.

The ironic thing about it is, while all this is not going on here, the absence of activity in the Congress where we ought to be conferencing the supplemental bill so we can get the process moving forward and hopefully get a bill back from the President that will have been vetoed so we can send him another bill that has funding in it for our troops, while all this is not going on in Washington, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, while the House is out of session this week in recess, is traveling around the world conducting foreign policy. Where and since when is it the job of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to conduct foreign policy, going to other countries in the world, particularly countries with which we don't have a relationship, countries that harbor and sponsor terrorist activities, meeting with them to deliver messages from other countries around the world?

I know we have a President and Vice President, we have a State Department and a diplomatic corps, all of which are tasked with that important job. But the Speaker of the House of Representatives somehow decided she should be the courier of messages between Israel and Syria.

It should come as no surprise that the Israeli Prime Minister took issue with the Speaker of the House of Representatives conducting Israeli foreign policy as well, not to mention the fact that she didn't have the authority to do it, nor was the message she delivered the correct message. It seems to me what we ought to be focused on as a Congress is not running around the world meeting with leaders who are aiding and abetting the very people our men and women in uniform are fighting against in Iraq but, rather, being in Washington, dealing with the important issue of funding our men and women in uniform who are involved in a very important mission for the future of our country. I know this is an issue on which this country has great debate. I know people in my State, as in many States, are weary of the conflict in Iraq.

We have in place a new strategy that includes additional troops, a change in rules of engagement, new conditions and benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, for the Iraqi military. I want to see it work. I want to see our troops succeed. I believe a majority of the people want to see our mission in Iraq succeed, knowing full well the consequences of failure will be detrimental and disastrous to the United States and to our security in the future. Yet here we are. The Senate is here. We can't conduct a conference because the House of Representatives is not in session, nor did they, before they departed for a 2-week recess, appoint conferees to the supplemental appropriations bill that would enable us to go about this important work.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

That is correct. The Senator is absolutely right. He well knows, anytime the House and Senate act on separate pieces of legislation, it has to go to a conference committee. Differences have to be worked out before the conference report can come back to the House and Senate and be passed and ultimately sent to the President.

Mr. President, I serve with my colleague from Alabama on the Armed Services Committee. This is an issue he cares deeply about, making sure our men and women are well cared for and that they are in a position to do the work we ask them to do. It would make sense--I think it is fair to say--that the House, knowing they were going to take a 2- week recess, to appoint the conferees so the important work of the conference committee could get underway, so we wouldn't have to wait another several weeks to get this legislation through the conference committee, ultimately sent to the President, where it is certain to be vetoed, so that it has to come back here and start all over again. It seems that would be a fair expectation of our colleagues in the other body when it comes to appointing conferees for this important legislation.

Having served three terms in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege during those terms to represent my class as a Member of the House leadership. On a weekly basis, I had the opportunity, under both Speakers Gingrich and Hastert, to be a part of the process. I know how many pressures and how much responsibility comes with the job of Speaker of the House. Our Senate leaders on both sides have a caucus of about 50 people, thereabouts, that they have to deal with. The Speaker of the House has a responsibility for making sure that 435 Members of the House of Representatives are moving forward with a legislative agenda. There is a lot of responsibility, a lot of pressure. I have experienced and seen firsthand much of that.

What I don't understand, however, is where in the job description of the Speaker of the House comes this notion that somehow the Speaker of the House ought to be going out and meeting with Syrian leaders, countries and leadership that are aiding and abetting the people we are fighting against, our enemies in Iraq, and trying to conduct foreign policy, representing the interests of one of our allies, the Nation of Israel, and not only misrepresenting their views but, frankly, exercising authority that clearly they didn't give her to exercise. I am at a loss to explain why we would be here waiting to conference an important supplemental appropriations bill that will fund the troops while the leadership of the other body is traveling the world, conducting meetings that clearly ought to be in the purview of our representation at the State Department and the White House and diplomatic corps.

If the Senator from Alabama would like to make some comments on this particular subject, I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alabama if he will yield for a question.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I agree with everything he said. The thing I guess that has troubled me about this process since the inception of the debate we have had in the Senate, that has been swirling around in Washington for some time, has to do with the way this supplemental bill was constructed and the proscriptive language that was put in it relative to tying the hands of our Commander in Chief, tying the hands of our generals, essentially substituting the judgment of politics in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field.

I am extremely troubled by that language, as is the President, which is why he has indicated he is going to veto this bill when it comes before him. They knew that. They knew that when it was passed. They knew when it went down there, it was going to be an issue which the President, absolutely, in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief, could not allow--that type of language and that type of restriction--to be imposed on his ability to prosecute and win wars.

But I guess my question to the Senator from Alabama has to do with: If the Senate or the House wanted to stop what is happening in Iraq, wanted to withdraw, get our troops home immediately--in spite of the fact that under this new strategy we now have more troops there, we have different rules of engagement, we have more buy-in from the Iraqis; the Iraqis are coming more into the fight; we have an opportunity, in my view, at least, hopefully, to have success there-- what is the step the Congress, if they wanted to basically end our involvement there, could do? Is it not to cut off funding? Would that not be?

If the Senate and the House were serious about this, why is it they are going about all these shenanigans, trying to provoke this confrontation with the President over this particular language that ties his hands relative to time lines, when in fact the real constitutional role the Congress has is funding? Is funding not the way, if the Senate and the House wanted to be heard on this, they would go about doing that?

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Alabama because I think it is an important point to make--I have heard the debate here a lot, and, again, as it continues in this city and across the country, that there has to be a political or diplomatic solution that somehow we have to reach; the sides have to come together, which I do not disagree with. However, I would also argue, in order for that to happen, you have to have security. You cannot have a functioning democracy or government absent security; in the last several hours, a couple of lawmakers in Iraq were killed in the Green Zone.

How is a government to function, how is a political process to work, if there is not adequate security, which is the point I believe many of us have made all along. I say to my colleague from Alabama, there has to be not only a political solution, but there has to be security established. That is what this new strategy is designed to accomplish, to allow that process to work. We ought to allow this strategy an opportunity to work, rather than pass bills out of here that tie the hands of the President, tie the hands of our generals, substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field. Furthermore, we need to get funding to our troops.

So I think the Senator from Alabama has put it very eloquently, and I join him in urging the rest of our colleagues in the Senate--and, obviously, hopefully, very soon in the House--to get this process wrapped up, to get a bill to the President that he will ultimately veto, send it back here, start over again, and let's at least get the funding to our troops so we can get this situation in Iraq secure so this political process can function and work and, hopefully, create a stable democracy.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because it is that time of year again. Tax day is almost upon us. As millions of Americans rush to get their taxes done this weekend, and many having just completed the process, we all know what a pain it is to have your hard-earned dollars taken away by the Government.

Mr. President, if you thought this year was painful, I have terrible news for you. It is going to get a lot worse. Under the new management in Congress, the Democrats have proposed a budget that would result in the largest tax increase in America's history. That means more money will be taken away from families and small businesses. Since we all just completed one, or are about to do so, I want to have us look at how the Democrats are going to increase America's taxes on a typical 1040 tax form.

Let's start up here with filing status. Say you are a married couple filing jointly. The marriage penalty is back. That means married couples are going to pay somewhere in the range of another $1,360 more in higher taxes because of the return of the marriage penalty.

Some taxpayers are going to find their exemption of $3,300 get cut to zero.

Go down to dividends and senior citizens. Anybody who has a dividend in this country is going to see their taxes increased on dividends to 39.6 percent, which is an increase from the current tax rate on dividends of 15 percent.

Capital gains. Let's say you are a senior citizen and you have capital gains income. Your tax rate is going to go from 15 percent to 20 percent.

How about those families that are putting kids through college and are now taking advantage of the student loan interest deduction? Well, that, too, is going to be capped for families making more than $60,000 a year.

Let's move over to the taxpayers who itemize deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions, State and local tax deduction. What is going to happen there is you are going to see this go up; it will be capped, the amount they can deduct.

Take the alternative minimum tax, right down here. The alternative minimum tax is going to affect an additional 20 million Americans who are going to have to pay that.

How about the credit for child and dependent care expenses, which is something the working families in this country take advantage of. There again, that credit is going to be slashed by 31 percent.

The child tax credit that a lot of working families in this country take advantage of is currently at $1,000. That also is going to be slashed in half from $1,000 down to $500.

Let's take a look at the earned-income tax credit. Again, this is a credit which is taken advantage of by a lot of lower income working Americans and a lot of people who are serving their country--soldiers, men and women in uniform--slashed.

Let's take a look at the tax rate schedule, too, because I think this is very important. If you are a taxpayer today paying at the 10-percent tax rate, the 10-percent tax rate is boom, gone, boom, gone, boom, gone, boom, gone. If you are paying at the 25-percent tax rates, your taxes are going to go up to 28 percent. You lose the 25-percent rate. If you are paying at the 28-percent rate, your taxes are going to go up to 31 percent. If you are someone who is paying currently at the 33- percent rate, your taxes are going to go up--boom--to 36 percent. If you are someone who is currently paying taxes at the 35-percent rate, your taxes are going to go up to 39.6 percent.

So what does all this mean? Everybody wants to know, when they do their taxes, what the bottom line is; how does it affect me when it comes to the actual amount of taxes I am going to pay?

We took a typical family in South Dakota to see how it would impact them. A typical family in South Dakota, when it comes down to computing the amount they are going to owe in taxes under this Democratic budget, will pay an additional $2,596 in taxes on top of what they are already paying this year if this Democratic budget is enacted.

The point I am simply making is this: When you get behind and read through all the fine print in the Democratic budget, you come down to one simple conclusion: higher taxes--higher taxes for married couples because of the return of the marriage penalty. You are going to get penalized for being married. That is the ``benefit'' for being married, if the Democratic budget is enacted; higher taxes for seniors, who are going to pay a 39-percent tax rate on dividend income; a 20-percent tax increase, from 15 percent, on capital gains distributions; higher taxes on working families in this country who are trying to put their kids through college and who are going to lose some of the deductions they currently get for student loan interest.

If I take it over to the next chart, the credit for child dependent care expenses, child tax credit, impacting working families, higher taxes for working families, higher taxes for low-income Americans because of the earned-income tax credit, and again, most importantly probably in all of this, the 10-percent rate lower income Americans currently pay is gone, it is eliminated--gone, boom. Every tax rate on the rate schedule today is going to go up, from 25 percent to 28 percent, from 28 percent to 31 percent, from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Every person in this country who pays taxes today is going to see a higher tax bill because of this Democratic budget. And as I said--every State can check this out for themselves--in my State of South Dakota, a typical bill is going to go up by $2,596 over this year.

That is the bottom line. That is the bottom line on the Democratic budget--higher taxes, the highest, biggest increase in taxes in America's history.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the passing of William O. ``Doc'' Farber of Vermillion, SD. Doc Farber passed away this week at the age of 96. He was a selfless educator who dedicated his time and energy to encouraging those around him to strive for success. He will be dearly missed by family, friends, and students, but his legacy will live on for generations to come.

William O. Farber was born in 1910 in Geneseo, IL, and graduated from Geneseo Public High School as valedictorian in 1928. He went on to receive his B.A. and M.A. from Northwestern University in Chicago, where he graduated with honors, was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and was a Harris Scholar. After earning his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, Farber came to the University of South Dakota, USD, as an assistant professor in 1935. He left USD for a department

chairmanship at North Dakota State in 1937, but returned a year later to serve as chair of the Department of Government, a position he held for 38 years. Along with teaching, Farber was heavily involved in state government and national service. He helped create USD's Government Research Bureau, served as the first director of the South Dakota Legislative Research Council, and was a member of South Dakota's Constitutional Revision and Local Government Study Commissions.

Throughout his 70 years at the University of South Dakota, Farber influenced numerous well-known graduates, including many state and national leaders. Six of his former students were Rhodes Scholars and two of his students, Larry Pressler and Tim Johnson, became U.S. Senators. NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, USA Today founder Al Neuharth, and media personality Pat O'Brien also took classes from the famed professor. Farber was not just an educator, but served as a friend and mentor to many of his students. According to Brokaw, the advice he received from Farber while in college helped him turn his life around. Always looking out for his students, Doc even drove Brokaw to a job interview in Omaha because the future newsman's car had broken down.

Doc Farber was an amazing teacher, a committed public servant, and an all-around remarkable person. South Dakota has lost a truly outstanding man who inspired countless students to broaden their horizons and to make a difference in the world. While Doc Farber will be greatly missed by all who knew him, he will forever be remembered for the life he led.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for yielding.

I rise in support of his amendment and also note that Friday of last week, March 23, was, in my view, a sad day because it was on that day the House of Representatives voted to usurp the responsibilities of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority in the Senate, rather than reject this ill-conceived and dangerous line of thinking, has chosen to endorse it.

I believe the phased redeployment language in the supplemental is wrong. Today, I ask my colleagues to stop and think about the long-term effects the redeployment language is going to have. This language will do more than redeploy troops. It will set a precedent that Congress may interject itself into the military chain of command. This is not a slippery slope, it is a straight drop to the bottom.

War requires one Commander in Chief. Every civilization, from Greece to the British Empire, has understood this basic premise, as did our Founders.

Wars are unpredictable, and they are fluid. Success in any military conflict requires energy, speed, flexibility, and

adaptability. I thought the Senate understood this, particularly when we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to be the commander of forces in Iraq.

What are our commanders in the field supposed to think? What orders are they to comply with? Are they going to conduct the surge or are they going to reorganize their forces to comply with redeploying the troops? Should we expect our commanders to read their operations orders or congressional conference reports to determine their priorities?

This effort, led by the Democratic majority, is simply a bad idea, and I hope my colleagues can see that the short-term gain they seek on this bill will lead to long-term consequences for the military.

The other reason I oppose the redeployment language is it confuses strategic policy with foreign policy. Both have the same goal: victory in Iraq and to bring our troops home. However, that goal is arrived at by very different means.

Our strategic policy is set by the President and by our military commanders. Conversely, our foreign policy is set by their diplomatic counterparts at the State Department. That is why interagency cooperation is important now more than ever. In order for the U.S. Government to effectively employ the elements of the national power, Congress must resist the temptation to intervene and ultimately make matters worse.

Redeploying our troops from Iraq on a published timeline is not going to end the war on terrorism. To me, the redeployment language in this bill is the strategic equivalent of the Maginot line. In World War II, the French built a wall and the Germans went around it. If we publish our deployment timeline, then Shia and Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida in Iraq, and Iranian instigators will all simply wait for us to leave and then begin their efforts to undo all we have worked for over the past 4 to 5 years.

The conflict we are fighting today is unlike any other we have fought. That is why I find the Democratic talking points about how the war in Iraq has lasted longer than this conflict or that conflict to be so disingenuous. They are right on one point: This is not World War II. It is not Vietnam. It is Iraq. It is the war on terror, and our efforts in Iraq cannot be looked at in a vacuum.

Iraq is a front in the war on terror, but it is not the front in the war on terror, because this war has no front. If you want to know where the front is in the war on terror, then get in your car and drive 10 minutes over to the Pentagon. That is a front. Go to New York and look at the gaping holes in the ground. That is a front. Or visit the field in Pennsylvania where a group of brave passengers forced a plane to the ground at the expense of their own lives. That is a front. If any of my colleagues are still wondering where the front is on the war on terror, you are standing on it.

In order to deal with this phenomenon, in almost every sector of U.S. security policy we are trying to push America's enemies further away. Port security is a perfect example. We are putting inspectors in foreign ports to inspect cargo before it comes to the United States, and we are allowing the Coast Guard to inspect ships further out at sea, all for the purpose of putting the enemy farther away from us. Yet in this instance, this bill seems to invite our enemies into the very heart of our country. To me, it simply does not make sense.

Our colleagues on the other side also like to note there were no Iraqis on the planes that attacked us on September 11. Well, there weren't any Afghanis either. In fact, if we follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion about who was on those planes, then perhaps this Congress should change the 2002 authorization for the use of force and allow the President to attack Saudi Arabia, because the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.

Of course, such a line of thinking is ridiculous because this conflict is not about national identity, it is about ideology. It is about good versus evil, right versus wrong, freedom versus tyranny, and hope versus cynicism.

I will concede this administration has not handled Iraq as well as it could have, but I also believe this debate is more about our national identity or resolve than our involvement in Iraq.

I still believe that America, for all its faults, is a shining city on a hill, that our greatest export should be freedom and our greatest asset being people and ideas; that we are a beacon of hope to those who toil in the darkness of tyranny and oppression. I also believe if we pass this legislation, we are saying to the world the United States is committed to defending freedom only when it is convenient or popular. That is not the America I know. It is not the America my father, a World War II fighter pilot, taught me about or the country we should hope to become.

It is my sincere hope my colleagues will vote to support Senator Cochran's amendment to remove the troop withdrawal language from this bill. If we do not, I believe we will be doing more harm than good, despite the intentions to the contrary.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the Madison High School gymnastics team. On February 16, 2007, the Lady Bulldogs won the South Dakota Class A State Gymnastics Title. This impressive accomplishment allowed the Lady Bulldogs to tie the national record of 13 consecutive championship wins. They currently share the national record with Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA, who set the record from 1973 to 1985.

The Lady Bulldogs finished the season with an outstanding performance at the South Dakota Class A State Gymnastics Meet. With a final score of 141.893 points they not only tied the national record for consecutive State championships, but also set a South Dakota Class A State record. These two records highlight the talent and dedication that has characterized Madison's gymnastics team for the past 13 years.

Head Coach Maridee Dossett has demonstrated her allegiance to the Lady Bulldogs both as an athlete and a coach. She was a senior on the team that brought home the first State title for the Madison gymnasts in 1995. Since that time, she has continued to contribute to the success of the team through her dedication and strong leadership.

Leading Madison to victory was Katie Finck in the uneven bars and floor exercise categories, and Katie Breuer in the balance beam, vault and all around categories. Following the example set by these two gymnasts, the Lady Bulldogs illustrated their extraordinary teamwork and successfully dominated each category of the competition.

I would like to take this opportunity to honor and thank all those dedicated to the Madison Central School District: Head Coach Maridee Dossett, Assistant Coach Kindra Norby, Athletic Director Bud Postma, Principal Sharon Knowlton, and Superintendent Dr. Frank Palleria. The time and effort put forth by these individuals have made it possible for the Lady Bulldogs to be one of the most successful gymnastics teams of all time.

I would also like to recognize the gymnast's parents for their support and devotion to the team. This great honor was made possible by your encouragement and dedication to your daughters and their teammates.

Most of all I would like to congratulate the women who won the State championship this year and all the athletes who have been a part of this record-tying streak. The gymnasts of the 2006-2007 Lady Bulldog team, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Katie Breuer, Kassie Finck, Theresa Knapp, Katie Mackenzie, Heidi Mogck, Mara Riedel, Sara Rogers, Kaitlyn Walker, and Heather Williams.

These student-athletes should be very proud of their remarkable achievements over the past years. The inspiration of the gymnasts that began this record success in 1995 has empowered those who have followed in their footsteps and will continue to bring motivation to Madison's student-athletes in the future.

On behalf of the city of Madison and the State of South Dakota, I am pleased to say congratulations Lady Bulldogs on this impressive national accomplishment and keep up the great work.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for accommodating us. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership on this issue. I have supported his efforts for some time to get rid of the death tax. I have supported getting rid of this unfair tax going back to my days as a Member of the House of Representatives.

Last year, I came down to the Senate floor and gave examples of real- life family farms that are facing the effects of the death tax. I wanted to remind Senators of two of those family farms. I think sometimes it gets lost. We think we are dealing with these concepts in the abstract, but they affect real people. These stories are real, and the effect of the tax is real as well.

The first example is a 3,000-acre family farm operation in central South Dakota. In my State, that is a medium-sized operation. A death occurred in this family and, as a result, $750,000 will likely be paid in taxes. This is a huge amount of money for a farm operation in my State, where land values can make an operation look a lot more valuable on paper than they are in reality.

In other words, farmers such as this can often be described as ``land rich'' but ``cash poor.'' All their value is in the land. When a massive death tax bill comes due, the only option is often to sell the land to pay the unfair and unjust tax. Thus, a family legacy comes to an end.

The second example is a 10,000-acre operation in north central South Dakota. Similar to so many farms and ranches in my State, the parents who have run the place for decades are getting older. Their kids would like to continue in the business, but the death tax on that farm would likely be $1.5 million. That would make it virtually impossible for the kids to stay on the farm and keep that family farm operation going. I find it extremely disturbing that our Federal Tax Code could influence a family's ability to keep their family farm from being broken up and sold off.

The budget resolution is more than a list of numbers. It is a statement of our priorities. These priorities are going to impact real people. I believe our budget should show we are prioritizing family farms, family ranches, and small businesses. We can show that these family small businesses are a priority by making room in the budget for permanent, meaningful death tax reform.

The death tax is a completely unfair tax because Americans pay their fair share of taxes throughout their life on what they earn, what they own, what they buy, only to see the IRS take one last bite when they die.

It is also unfair because the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world have teams of lawyers and accountants to make sure they pay little or no death tax. But the family-owned operations and small businesses I talked about are the ones that end up paying.

It is for these reasons that Congress acted a few years ago to repeal the death tax, but because of some strange rules that can only be devised in a place such as the Senate, the death tax comes back to life in the year 2011.

I believe we need to enact permanent, meaningful death tax reform this year. This amendment takes us down that path. I hope my colleagues on both sides will support it. I credit the Senator from Arizona for drafting this in a way that is consistent with the proposal offered last year by a colleague on the other side. I hope Members on both sides can support this, and I hope, once and for all, we will get rid of this unfair and unjust tax.

I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize former South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department Secretary John Cooper, who received the Outdoor Life Conservation Award from Outdoor Life magazine. This prestigious award reflects his tremendous service to South Dakota and his commitment to wildlife conservation.

Mr. Cooper has been honorably serving the State of South Dakota for over 30 years. He spent 22 years with the Law Enforcement Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where he worked tirelessly to conserve and protect South Dakota's diverse wildlife. In 1995, he was appointed Secretary of South Dakota's Department of Game, Fish and Parks, a position that he held until earlier this year. He also spent years leading committees for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and in 2006 served as its president. In addition to his government duties, Mr. Cooper served as an editor and columnist for Dakota Outdoors magazine for 14 years.

Mr. Cooper's service to South Dakota has been, and will continue to be, vital to the health and wellbeing of our State. It gives me great pleasure to rise with Mr. Cooper and to offer my congratulations for this well-deserved award. I wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Larry E. Gabriel. This month, Secretary Gabriel retired after nearly 7 years in office since his appointment in May of 2000.

Secretary Gabriel was born and raised on a ranch in western South Dakota and received his bachelor of science degree in agricultural economics at South Dakota State University. While in college, he was recognized as the 1969 Doane's Outstanding Agricultural Economics Student.

Throughout his career, Secretary Gabriel has spent many years committed to public service, including roles as Haakon County Commissioner from 1975 to 1982 and State legislator from 1983 to 1998. He spent 6 years as the house majority leader while in the South Dakota House of Representatives, and currently serves as a member of the hospital board in Philip, SD.

Secretary Gabriel's dedication to South Dakota agriculture has made a defining impact in strengthening and sustaining the economy of our State. His strong support of rural economic development and assistance to young producers has brought increased vitality and prosperity to our agriculture industry.

I also would like to recognize Secretary Gabriel's wife Charlotte and his family for their support and sacrifice which allowed him to serve South Dakota for over 30 years.

It is with great honor that I remember and honor the service provided by Secretary Larry E. Gabriel to South Dakota. May he always be recognized for his lifetime of service to South Dakota agriculture. On behalf of a grateful State, I wish Secretary Gabriel all the best in his retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will sustain important air service--in South Dakota and other rural States across the country. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 allowed airlines to provide air service to domestic markets as they saw fit. But Congress had the foresight to create the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program to ensure a minimal level of scheduled air service in small communities. Without the EAS program, these small communities might have otherwise seen the airlines pull up stakes and only focus on larger, more profitable markets.

Essential Air Service is especially important to rural States like my home State of South Dakota. We have four communities that participate in the EAS program: Brookings, Huron, Pierre, and Watertown. Ensuring air passengers have access in and out of these smaller communities makes our entire commercial airline network more valuable.

The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It extends a provision, Section 409, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in the 2002 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization, commonly referred to as Vision 100. This provision ensures that certain mileage calculations that determine EAS program eligibility are

not simply measured by some bureaucrat in Washington, but are in fact certified by States' Governors. There are, of course, budgetary strains on the EAS program. Congress and the Administration should focus on strengthening the program and examine the air service it is supporting to make sure it is truly essential, but we should not allow bureaucrats behind a desk in Washington to surreptitiously use mileage determinations to cut the costs of the program and reduce air service in the process.

Brookings is a community in my home State that would have more than likely lost its commercial air service if this provision was not in place five years ago. We should keep it in place for the next five years to make sure Brookings and other communities like it do not end up the cutting room floor of the EAS program.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to begin the process of reauthorizing FAA programs again this year. Aviation is a crucial element of our economy. I hope that this legislation, or at least the concept behind it, is considered during the reauthorization debate.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will sustain important air service--in South Dakota and other rural States across the country. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 allowed airlines to provide air service to domestic markets as they saw fit. But Congress had the foresight to create the Essential Air Service (EAS) Program to ensure a minimal level of scheduled air service in small communities. Without the EAS program, these small communities might have otherwise seen the airlines pull up stakes and only focus on larger, more profitable markets.

Essential Air Service is especially important to rural States like my home State of South Dakota. We have four communities that participate in the EAS program: Brookings, Huron, Pierre, and Watertown. Ensuring air passengers have access in and out of these smaller communities makes our entire commercial airline network more valuable.

The bill I am introducing today is very simple. It extends a provision, Section 409, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in the 2002 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization, commonly referred to as Vision 100. This provision ensures that certain mileage calculations that determine EAS program eligibility are

not simply measured by some bureaucrat in Washington, but are in fact certified by States' Governors. There are, of course, budgetary strains on the EAS program. Congress and the Administration should focus on strengthening the program and examine the air service it is supporting to make sure it is truly essential, but we should not allow bureaucrats behind a desk in Washington to surreptitiously use mileage determinations to cut the costs of the program and reduce air service in the process.

Brookings is a community in my home State that would have more than likely lost its commercial air service if this provision was not in place five years ago. We should keep it in place for the next five years to make sure Brookings and other communities like it do not end up the cutting room floor of the EAS program.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to begin the process of reauthorizing FAA programs again this year. Aviation is a crucial element of our economy. I hope that this legislation, or at least the concept behind it, is considered during the reauthorization debate.