Floor Statements

Mr. President, back in 1962, Marshall McLuhan wrote, ``The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village.'' Certainly, 40 years later, that concept is truer than ever. As we prepare for the future in this global village, we need to affirm America's leadership role in the world.

The United States accounts for one-third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. While this is impressive, relative to

GDP, though, America falls to sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea, and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers whom I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Today, I am pleased to join with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2007. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through Federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, our bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, our bill would create a simpler credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years. This simplified credit would phase in over 3 years.

Just as important, the bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 11 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit last expired in December of 2005. After much consternation and delay, Congress passed a 2-year extension just last month, extending the credit for 2006 and 2007. These temporary extensions have taken their toll on taxpayers. In 2005, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are three different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. Under the new tax bill enacted last month, a third formula was created, which does not rely on gross receipts and is available only for 2007. Our bill simplifies these credits and will move all taxpayers to the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' which is based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formulas hurt companies that have fluctuating sales. It hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

This new simpler formula in our bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting. The current formula would be available to companies for 2 years, and then it would phase out.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. It creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. It is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time. Further, this bill adds a mandate for a Treasury study to look at substantiation issues and ensure that current recordkeeping requirements assist the IRS without unduly burdening the taxpayer.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

Our research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, our bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. It benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. Our bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex that the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely under-utilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capitalists, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships

be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

In sum, our bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and nonprofits alike.

McLuhan's quote about the global village was taken by many at the time as a wake-up call to a changing world. Since then, many more leaders in this village have emerged. Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can we ensure that it is.

Mr. President, back in 1962, Marshall McLuhan wrote, ``The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village.'' Certainly, 40 years later, that concept is truer than ever. As we prepare for the future in this global village, we need to affirm America's leadership role in the world.

The United States accounts for one-third of the world's spending on scientific research and development, ranking first among all countries. While this is impressive, relative to

GDP, though, America falls to sixth place. And the trends show that maintaining American leadership in the future depends on increased commitment to research and science.

Asia has recognized this. Asia is plowing more funding into science and education. China, in particular, understands that technological advancement means security, independence, and economic growth. Spending on research and development has increased by 140 percent in China, Korea, and Taiwan. In America, it has increased by only 34 percent.

Asia's commitment is already paying off. More than a hundred Fortune 500 companies have opened research centers in India and China. I have visited some of them. I was impressed with the level of skill of the workers whom I met there.

China's commitment to research, at $60 billion in expenditures, is dramatic by any measure. Over the last few years, China has doubled the share of its economy that it invests in research. China intends to double the amount committed to basic research in the next decade. Currently, only America beats out China in numbers of researchers in the workforce.

Today, I am pleased to join with my colleague on the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Research Competitiveness Act of 2007. This bill would improve our research competitiveness in four major areas. All four address incentives in our tax code. Government also supports research through Federal spending. But I am not addressing those areas today.

First, our bill improves and simplifies the credit for applied research in section 41 of the tax code. This credit has grown to be overly complex, both for taxpayers and the IRS. Beginning in 2008, our bill would create a simpler credit for qualifying research expenses that exceed 50 percent of the average expenses for the prior 3 years. This simplified credit would phase in over 3 years.

Just as important, the bill makes the credit permanent. Because the credit has been temporary, it has simply not been as effective as it could be. Since its creation in 1981, it has been extended 11 times. Congress even allowed it to lapse during one period.

The credit last expired in December of 2005. After much consternation and delay, Congress passed a 2-year extension just last month, extending the credit for 2006 and 2007. These temporary extensions have taken their toll on taxpayers. In 2005, the experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote: ``Perhaps the greatest criticism of the R&E credit among taxpayers regards its temporary nature.'' Joint Tax went on to say, ``A credit of longer duration may more successfully induce additional research than would a temporary credit, even if the temporary credit is periodically renewed.''

Currently, there are three different ways to claim a tax credit for qualifying research expenses. First, the ``traditional'' credit relies on incremental increases in expenses compared to a mid-1980s base period. Second, the ``alternative incremental'' credit measures the increase in research over the average of the prior 4 years.

Both of these credits have base periods involving gross receipts. Under the new tax bill enacted last month, a third formula was created, which does not rely on gross receipts and is available only for 2007. Our bill simplifies these credits and will move all taxpayers to the ``Alternative Simplified Credit,'' which is based on research spending without reference to gross receipts. The current formulas hurt companies that have fluctuating sales. It hurts companies that take on a new line of business not dependent on research.

This new simpler formula in our bill would not start until 2008. That start date would give companies plenty of time to adjust their accounting. The current formula would be available to companies for 2 years, and then it would phase out.

The main complaint about the existing credits is that they are very complex, particularly the reference to the 20-year-old base period. This base period creates problems for the taxpayer in trying to calculate the credit. It creates problems for the IRS in trying to administer and audit those claims.

The new credit focuses only on expenses, not gross receipts. It is still an incremental credit, so that companies must continue to increase research spending over time. Further, this bill adds a mandate for a Treasury study to look at substantiation issues and ensure that current recordkeeping requirements assist the IRS without unduly burdening the taxpayer.

A tax credit is a cost-effective way to promote R&E. A report by the Congressional Research Service finds that without government support, investment in R&E would fall short of the socially optimal amount. Thus CRS endorses Government policies to boost private sector R&E.

Also, American workers who are engaged in R&E activities benefit from some of the most intellectually stimulating, high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the economy.

My own State of Montana has excellent examples of this economic activity. During the 1990s, about 400 establishments in Montana provided high-technology services, at an average wage of about $35,000 per year. These jobs paid nearly 80 percent more than the average private sector wage, which was less than $20,000 a year during the same period. Many of these jobs would never have been created without the assistance of the R&E credit.

Our research bill would also establish a uniform reimbursement rate for all contract and consortia R&E. It would provide that 80 percent of expenses for research performed for the taxpayer by other parties count as qualifying research expenses under the regular credit.

Currently, when a taxpayer pays someone else to perform research for the taxpayer, the taxpayer can claim one of three rates in order to determine how much the taxpayer can include for the research credit. The lower amount is meant to assure overhead expenses that normally do not qualify for the R&E credit are not counted. Different rates, however, create unnecessary complexity. Therefore, our bill creates a uniform rate of 80 percent.

The second major research area that this bill addresses is the need to enhance and simplify the credit for basic research. This credit benefits universities and other entities committed to basic research. It benefits the companies or individuals who donate to them. Our bill provides that payments under the university basic research credit would count as contractor expenses at the rate of 100 percent.

The current formula for calculating the university basic research credit--defined as research ``for the advancement of science with no specific commercial objective''--is even more complex that the regular traditional R&E credit. Because of this complexity, this credit costs less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the cost of the regular R&E credit. It is completely under-utilized. It needs to be simplified to encourage businesses to give more for basic research.

American universities have been powerful engines of scientific discovery. To maintain our premier global position in basic research, America relies on sustained high levels of basic research funding and the ability to recruit the most talented students in the world. The gestation of scientific discovery is long. At least at first, we cannot know the commercial applications of a discovery. But America leads the world in biotechnology today because of support for basic research in chemistry and physics in the 1960s. Maintaining a commitment to scientific inquiry, therefore, must be part of our vision for sustained competitiveness.

Translating university discoveries into commercial products also takes innovation, capital, and risk. The Center for Strategic and International Studies asked what kind of government intervention can maintain technological leadership. One source of technological innovation that provides America with comparative advantage is the combination of university research programs, entrepreneurs, and risk capital from venture capitalists, corporations, or governments. Research clusters around Silicon Valley and North Carolina's Research Triangle exemplify this sort of combination.

The National Academies reached a similar conclusion in a 2002 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives. In a report, they wrote: ``To enhance the transition from basic to applied research, the committee recommends that industrial partnerships

be stimulated and nurtured to help accelerate the commercialization of national nanotechnology developments.''

In sum, our bill would boost both applied and basic research. It would boost research by businesses big and small. And it would foster research by for-profit and nonprofits alike.

McLuhan's quote about the global village was taken by many at the time as a wake-up call to a changing world. Since then, many more leaders in this village have emerged. Let us work to see that the next big technological advance is discovered here in America. Only through continued commitment to research can we ensure that it is.

Madam President, since the year 2000, shortly after news reports attributed hundreds of deaths to asbestos exposure from decades of vermiculite mining in Libby, MT, I have worked hard on behalf of the people there to ensure that they received the care they needed. The Center for Asbestos Related Disease plays an important role in screening Libby residents and providing them with the health care they need as a result of this tragedy.

The people living in Libby suffer asbestos-related diseases at a rate 40 to 60 times the national average. They suffer from mesothelioma at a rate 100 times the national average. The culprit for this unprecedented tragedy is a highly toxic tremolite asbestos amphibole. Due to the shipping of Libby asbestos to processing sites in 30 States, and its subsequent use as insulation material in all parts of the country, the toxicity of this amphibole is an issue of national importance.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency have designated the Center for Asbestos Related Disease as a clearinghouse for information that facilitates clinical epidemiological and pathologic studies of asbestos-related diseases. This new role unfortunately comes without adequate funding to accommodate the transition to this national leadership role.

This is an issue of national concern to scientists who rely on tremolite asbestos data for their work. Support letters have been sent to Members of this body by researchers at the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation from California, Mount Sinai Medical School in New York, Wayne State University in Michigan, North Carolina State University, the University of Vermont, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Pennsylvania, and Montana State University. These letters all emphasize the importance of the Libby data to the national research efforts on asbestos related disease.

That is why I submitted an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. My amendment would provide $250,000 to the Center for Asbestos Related Disease in Libby, MT, so that the clinic can provide its critically important information to clinical researchers and universities across the country. The raw data and data management that the center provides for research institutions will facilitate meaningful research into amphibole asbestos toxicity and health impacts.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might ask what the Feingold amendment is and how long he expects to take, and whether he expects to vote on that amendment.

Mr. President, further reserving, I wonder--and this is a bit of an imposition--if I could ask unanimous consent to speak on the SCHIP override vote 5 minutes preceding the Senator offering his amendment.

I deeply appreciate it.

Five minutes on the Children's Health Insurance Program override--5 minutes--and then go back to the regular order.

I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their indulgence.

It was with sadness and frustration and even anger that I learned of the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am sad, because I am thinking first and foremost of the children without health coverage today. Those children could have had health coverage tomorrow had the President signed this bill. For now, thanks to his veto, these children will continue to go without doctors' visits. They will go without the medicines they need to stay healthy.

I have frustration, because we worked for months on a bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program agreement in the Senate. The House wisely adopted it. It was passed by an overwhelming margin. It deserved better consideration by the President of the United States.

Instead, the carefully crafted compromise that we sent to the White House became the subject of a campaign of misinformation. That campaign was designed to obscure the true help for families contained in our bill, and that is frustrating.

There is anger as well, because that is what so many parents in my own State of Montana and all across this country are feeling, and are right to feel today. There is anger because working families are not getting what they deserve. The pain of not being able to provide reliable health care for a child has to be excruciating. The President has the power to end that pain for millions of parents today. Congress gave him the chance to help children get the health care they need, but the President said no.

It has to make hard-working parents angry. They have a right to be angry--for a minute--but then we have to get back to work for America's children.

The President has allowed politics to obscure the good that the Children's Health Insurance Program does for low-income, uninsured American children. And he has allowed ideology to obscure the good that this bill could do for millions more.

We must take a different path. We cannot allow anger to get in the way of the work that must be done. There is too much at stake for our children.

Regardless of the administration's objections, these are still the facts. Our Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act already does what the President has asked:

It focuses coverage on the lowest income children--the original mission of CHIP. More than 9 out of 10 kids served by CHIP are in families earning less than twice the poverty level; it keeps CHIP for children by curbing and even eliminating adult coverage; and it takes great pains to reach children who are without insurance--not those who already have coverage. Our bill gives States incentives to find the low-income kids already eligible for CHIP.

We worked hard to craft a responsible bill, because we know the good that CHIP has done; and we will not give up on enacting it into law, because we see how much more good CHIP can do.

After months of cooperation, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and the House must work together again to override this ill-considered veto. A poll released just yesterday says that nearly out three out of four Americans support the approach in our bill.

How can the President turn a blind eye to those who need this bill the most? How can he deny them what they need more than anything: to be healthy? How can he look into a mother's eye and say that he supports CHIP, while at the same time his hand strikes it down?

CHIP is the right answer for thousands of children in Montana and millions across the country. They need health coverage and care today. So here in the Senate, we will do our part to override this veto. We are going to make the case to more colleagues who should support this bill. We're going to bring together those who value kids over politics. We will vote for America's children. We will seek to end the sadness, frustration, and anger that so many families must feel over this veto. We will tell them that the help and hope of the Children's Health Insurance Program is still possible for their own children.

Mr. President, we are not finished working for America's children.

Yes.

I say to my good friend from Michigan, it is strongly bipartisan. It was enacted first in 1997 as a bipartisan program. People love it, and it worked well. The legislation we passed in the Senate, and that which passed the House, is an extension to help a few more low-income uninsured kids. It is very important and very much bipartisan.

Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, current force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ISR, capabilities are impeded by three specific technology issues: in-theater network interference, dissimilar IT infrastructure across forces and intelligence agencies, and slow storage and retrieval of mission critical intelligence.

Once intelligence is gathered, whether by unmanned aerial vehicle, stationary sensors or mobile ground sensors, it is transmitted to ISR Command. The data is sent as two streams--content, which is the actual imagery, and context, which is comprised of metadata relating to location, date, time, target information, destination of message, sender information, and more. Currently, much of this context stream, whether location coordinates, date, and/or time information, is dropped or interrupted during transmission. These drops render as much as 30 percent of all motion video and still-imagery intelligence unusable. Such data loss negatively affects current ISR operations and creates undesirable consequences in the field.

In cooperation with Senators Tester, Kerry, Wyden, and Smith, I submitted an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. This amendment would provide funding for the Smart Data Project through companies in three states. The recipient of funding for this project would be Digimarc, Inc., of Oregon and Massachusetts. Additional research for the project will be conducted by GCS Research of Missoula, Montana, and S&K Technologies of Pablo, Montana. The purpose of this program is to address the existing capability gap within the military's intelligence gathering operations and to provide our military with real-time geospatial video sensor intelligence.

The basis for the solution to address this capability gap is currently employed by all the major media networks, which use components of Smart Data technology to track usage of proprietary video. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox embed unique data such as TV station identification, date, and time into the content. This unique embedded data is then used to generate reporting information about distribution and viewership.

Adaptation of Smart Data technology for military applications involves the embedding of key contextual information such as location coordinates, date, time, and sender onto reconnaissance imagery. The embedding technology developed by the Smart Data team will eliminate data loss that has negative effects on Current Force ISR operations. Addressing this data loss will improve operative effectiveness and save lives in the field.

amendment no. 3125

I object.

Madam President, what is the regular order?

Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Kentucky. I do not see him yet so I will begin.

Nearly every American schoolchild knows the story told in Parson Weems' 1800 biography ``The Life of Washington.'' That is our first President. According to Weems, young George used his new hatchet to chop down his father's cherry tree. His father asked George what happened. George was tempted to make up a story, but then in Weems' famous account, young George ``bravely cried out, `I cannot tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet.'''

I wish all public servants kept the same standard of truthfulness, especially in this debate. Regrettably, many of today's public servants appear all too tempted to make up a story. Many are failing to tell the truth about the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Let me set the record straight.

President Bush has said that our bill ``would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year.'' That is what our President said. That is not true. There is nothing in the Children's Health Insurance Program bill that would change current law and allow States to cover children in families making $83,000 a year. There is nothing in the current bill that would let that happen. Nothing in current law; nothing.

On income eligibility levels, the bill maintains current law. It doesn't change current law, it maintains current law on income eligibility levels. Current law limits CHIP to the higher of 200 percent of poverty or 50 percent above the State's prior Medicaid levels. Any State that wants to increase eligibility for CHIP above those levels has to get approval from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That is current law, and that is the law under the CHIP bill before us today. It is unchanged.

In fact, our bill actually includes new policies to discourage States from increasing eligibility for kids above 300 percent of poverty. Under our bill, States that increase eligibility above 300 percent-- again, they have to get approval from HHS to get a waiver--under our bill, those States that increase eligibility, if they get a waiver granted by the Bush administration or not, would get the lower Medicaid Federal match payment for higher income children. Our bill would decrease the incentive to cover higher income children relative to current law. It decreases incentives relative to current law.

Our bill also includes new policies requiring any States covering children above 300 percent to meet a target enrollment level for covering their lowest income children below 200 percent of poverty. That is new. States that don't meet the target by 2010 risk losing all Federal reimbursement for their higher income children. So our bill has an even greater focus on low-income kids compared with current law.

Our bill will benefit low-income children. The Urban Institute found that 70 to 80 percent of children helped by our bill are low-income children with family incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Our bill is targeted to help exactly the low-income children for which we created the CHIP program in the first place. Our bill continues that mission for the next 5 years.

The administration has also said our bill would move too many children from private insurance into CHIP. Once again, that is not true. According to Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag-- he is the top person in the independent Congressional Budget Office. His job is to independently assess what we do. There is no partisanship at all. He said there is always some ``crowdout'' or substitution of public coverage for private coverage whenever we create a new Government subsidy to help people. It always happens to some degree.

A few years ago--this is important for everybody to remember, especially the President--when we considered the Medicare prescription drug bill, the so-called MMA, CBO then said about two-thirds of those getting the new Government help would already have private coverage. Two-thirds already had private coverage. I don't remember the administration complaining about the crowdout then, complaining about people who might leave private coverage to go to Medicare Part D.

When we enacted the CHIP program 10 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected there would be about a 40-percent crowdout rate, not two-thirds as the case in the Medicare Part D but about 40 percent. What happened? Our bill has a lower crowdout. It is about 40 percent lower than CBO projected would happen in the program 10 years ago.

In fact, CBO Director Orszag said this year's Senate bill, which is very similar to the final bill we are considering, was ``pretty much as efficient as you can possibly get for new dollar spent to get a reduction of roughly 4 million uninsured children.''

We went to CBO and said we want to reduce the so-called crowdout as much as we can; how do we do it. We talked back and forth. And his assessment is the final bill is ``pretty much as efficient as you can possibly get,'' lower than any other major crowdout results.

The President also said he has a better plan to help uninsured children. If he does, he is keeping it under wraps.

The President talked about both his plan to reauthorize CHIP and his plan to promote private coverage through tax credits. But independent analyses of both plans suggest that under them, American children would fare far worse.

For the Children's Health Insurance Program, the President is proposing a $5 billion increase in Federal funds over the next 5 years. That is his proposal. The President says that will be enough. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees. The analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, again, an independent analysis of the President's plans, indicates it would not even maintain coverage for children currently enrolled in CHIP today. it would not even maintain it. In fact, CBO projects that under the President's plan, 1.4 million children would actually lose coverage.

The President's tax credit plan does not do much better. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated only about 500,000 children will gain new coverage under that plan. If we take CBO's estimates for these plans together, over 5 years, there would still be a net loss coverage for a million children--a net loss coverage for a million children compared with current law.

Causing a million children to lose health insurance is not a better plan to help uninsured children--not in my book, and I don't think it is in anybody else's book either.

I am not the only one who thinks what the administration is saying is essentially not true--in fact, not at all true. Go to the Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit media accuracy organization funded by the Annenberg Political Fund. Go to their Web site: www.factcheck.org. At the end of the day, our current President named George has a simple choice. He can bring health coverage to 3.8 million low-income uninsured children who have no insurance today or he can cut it with his hatchet, cutting coverage for at least a million children who would otherwise get the doctor visits and medicines they need through CHIP.

The right choice is to stand bravely with America's children.

I urge my colleagues to join me in making the right choice. Support the CHIP program. Call on the President to sign this important legislation.

Support the CHIP bill because the truth is our bill focuses benefits on low-income children. It is that simple. That is what the bill is, no more. The truth is, in terms of preserving private coverage, our bill is ``pretty much as efficient as you can possibly get.'' And the truth is, the administration does not have a credible alternative.

I urge my colleagues to join me in making the right choice because in the end, this bill is about helping those who can least afford health insurance now. This bill is about helping Americas parents who truly want the best for their children. And as much as some may be tempted to make up a story to say it is about something else, the truth is, this bill is about kids.

I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

There is no time limit. We have 6 hours allocated generally to this bill. The Senator can seek recognition.

I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on the motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 976, there be 6 hours 10 minutes for debate with respect to that motion and that the time so far consumed, frankly, be taken out of that total time; the time divided and controlled as follows: 2 hours under the control of Senator Baucus or his designee, and 4 hours 10 minutes under the control of Senator Grassley or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the matter be temporarily set aside and the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 43, the debt limit increase; that be 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with no amendment in order; and upon the use or yielding back of time, the joint resolution be read a third time and set aside; and that the Senate then resume the message on H.R. 976; that the motion to concur with amendments be withdrawn, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to concur; that upon disposition of H.R. 976, the Senate resume H.J. Res. 43 and vote on passage of the joint resolution, without intervening action; and that upon the conclusion of that vote, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the Senate then proceed to H.J. Res. 52, the continuing resolution; that no amendments be in order, the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate, without intervening action or debate, proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution; that upon passage, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that after the first vote in this sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes.

I also ask consent that the ``without intervening action or debate'' be stricken.

I ask the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I assume that is all within the time allocated.

Madam President, I have a couple of points. I don't want to prolong the debate. My good friend from Kentucky made a couple points I wish to clarify.

I did say I think our country should move toward universal health coverage. I think we should. In fact, our President, President Bush, has said the same thing. He said we should have universal coverage of health care in America. I think most Americans think we should have universal coverage. What does that mean? That means everyone should have health insurance. I did not say and do not mean we should have a single-payer system like Canada. I think we should have universal coverage with an appropriate mix of public and private coverage so that every American has coverage.

So I think for the Senator from Kentucky to make a charge that we are for universal coverage, I am, as is our President. Most Americans want universal coverage. My point is, what form and what way?

I think it is important to remember one thing. What does this CHIP bill do compared to current law? The charge is that it expands eligibility, it goes to upper income kids, and so on and so forth, it is another step in Government health care. That is the charge.

That is not the fact. This bill is more restrictive than current law--more restrictive than current law. Essentially, eligibility is, under current law, determined by States and the Federal Government. States determine eligibility--that is current law--and the administration either does or does not grant a waiver. This Republican administration has granted several waivers. In fact, one was to the Republican Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, when a major waiver was granted. So this bill does not change current law. Basically, it provides and uses the purse to discourage States from going to higher coverage by lowering the match rate. Nothing in this bill expands eligibility--nothing. So the charge that this is increasing eligibility to people other than children is just not accurate.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I see the Senator from West Virginia is seeking recognition.

Mr. President, a lot has been said in this debate. Much of it is not true, but much of it is true. One way to determine what is true and what is not true is, frankly, to listen to the Senator from Iowa. I know of no man or woman whom I believe speaks straighter, more honestly, and calls it like it is than the Senator from Iowa. I guess that is why he is elected by such large margins every time he is up for reelection. It has been such a pleasure to work with the Senator from Iowa because he is so straight, so modest. He tells it like it is, and he has no ulterior motives.

All Senators, especially those on this side of the aisle, should listen to him because what he says is true. When he describes what this bill contains and does not contain, he is accurate. So if a Senator is trying to figure out who is right--because we have heard all kinds of claims on both sides--it is my judgment that what you hear from the Senator from Iowa, you can take to the bank because that is the truth as to what is and is not in this bill.

As we close out this debate on the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, I wish to take the time to remind us all what our goals are--and not just our goals but what our duty is as Senators.

Today, the health of many of our Nation's low-income children is in our hands. It is that simple. We hear lots of stuff around here, but the bottom line is, the basic point is, the health of many of our Nation's low-income children is in our hands.

We are here today not only to make sure children who currently have health insurance keep it, but also to make sure that many more low- income children get coverage. This is important because not having health insurance affects a child's life. Uninsured kids do not go to the doctor. They do not have checkups. Uninsured kids remain undiagnosed for serious childhood conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Uninsured children are not diagnosed with learning disabilities, and they struggle through their classes. Kids who do not have insurance do not see a dentist. They don't get cavities filled and risk serious illness due to poor dental health.

Adequate health care is a critical foundation for a healthy life. Insuring our children is a smart economic investment for our Nation's future. It is the only choice if we wish to imbue future generations with strong minds and healthy bodies. It is quite simple. Health insurance has a direct effect on a child's performance in school. Healthy children are more likely to go to school, they are more likely to do well in school, and they are more likely to become productive members of the workforce.

Parents of children with health insurance are less likely to miss days of work to care for their sick children. When America insures our children, we all benefit.

The bill before us reflects a lot of hard work. It represents Democrats and Republicans working together, and I mean that. That is not an idle statement. That is not a throwaway. Both sides are working together. This is one of the few times when both sides, on very important legislation, worked very well together. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

We worked together to craft legislation that will give millions more American children the healthy start they need for a long productive life.

I hope the President finds it in his heart to reconsider and make the right choice, the only choice. I hope he will join Congress in making our children's future and America's future a brighter one. I hope he thinks, reflects about our country, the greatness of our country when he is trying to decide whether to sign the bill or to veto it.

I have faith, I have hope that when the President of the United States makes that decision, he will realize discretion is the better part of valor; that he will realize the right thing to do is to help our Nation's low-income kids. Further debate about health care reform can be pushed off into the future. That is a separate issue. That has nothing to do with this question.

This country will engage in national health reform. We have to. The President is talking about it. We in the Congress talk about it. That is an entirely separate issue. This is only maintaining a current program enacted in 1997, totally bipartisan. Senator Chafee from Rhode Island and Senator Hatch from Utah worked together to get this bill enacted because it was the right thing to do.

It has been very popular. Nobody has had any questions about children's health insurance. It has worked. Now it has expired. The question is, what do we do about it? This legislation does not change current law in any way. It just maintains the program and provides a few more dollars for more low-income kids to get health insurance, and it does not do anything more than that. That is what this is. It is a separate issue from the national health insurance reform debate, which we will get into and must get into at a later date.

I hope the President of the United States, when he is faced with that decision, will sign this bill and realize this is the right thing to do for kids, and tomorrow is another day when this country appropriately will debate national health insurance reform. But right now, let's help some kids.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the play ``The Taming of the Shrew,'' Shakespeare wrote: ``There is small choice in rotten apples.''

I feel a little like that whenever we have to raise the debt limit. It is a small choice in rotten apples. The choices are all bad. Really, though, there is no choice.

The legislation before us would increase the limit on the debt issued by the U.S. Government by $850 billion. The House has sent us this legislation. Essentially, we have no choice but to approve it. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. Treasury will default for the first time in its history. Plainly, especially in this credit crisis, we cannot let that happen. If we don't raise the ceiling before Monday, Treasury Secretary Paulson will be forced to take special measures to prevent the default from occurring. He feels those actions would create uncertainty in the financial markets. He thinks it would be unwise to add any uncertainty to the financial markets right now, and I agree with that. The markets already have enough uncertainty arising from the foreclosures on subprime mortgages. But there is no way around this. These are some rotten apples.

This increase in the debt ceiling will be the fifth increase during this administration. It increased by $450 billion in 2002, it increased by $984 billion in 2003, it increased by $800 billion in 2004, and it increased by $781 billion in 2006. Today's $850 billion increase in the debt ceiling will be the third largest increase in our Nation's history. The largest increase was the $984 billion hike in 2003. Once today's $850 billion increase is enacted, the fourth largest rise will have been the $800 billion in 2004. The fifth largest increase will have been the $781 billion hike in 2006.

There is no way around it. This is a poor fiscal record. When you add today's $850 billion increase to the previous increases since 2001, the debt ceiling will have increased by almost $4 trillion during this administration. The debt ceiling will have increased from about $6 trillion at the beginning of this administration to about $10 trillion now--$6 trillion at the beginning of this administration, the debt ceiling, will be increased now to about $10 trillion. That is a two- thirds increase in the debt ceiling in 7 years.

Unfortunately, for us today, there is little choice at this moment right now. There are other choices we should be making in this Congress and in this country with respect to our fiscal situation, but today, at this moment, with respect to the debt ceiling, there is little choice. The Government has already borrowed the money that has caused its debt to reach the current ceiling. It has already been borrowed. To keep the Government running, the Treasury now needs to borrow more money. The Treasury cannot do that unless we raise the debt ceiling.

Why is it unfortunate the Government has gone into so much debt? The answer is it lowers the standard of living for future generations of Americans. That is hardly the legacy we should want to leave for our children and grandchildren.

If the U.S. Government borrows money, it competes for funds from the global financial markets. Unless Americans begin to save more, these funds will come from foreign lenders. As a result, we will owe foreigners interest on those funds in future years. Because Americans will have to pay that interest to foreigners, we will have less money to spend on goods and services, and the standard of living for Americans in the future will be lower than it otherwise would be.

It is happening already. It is happening because the dollar is declining. It is declining quite precipitously. Why is the dollar declining? Probably because our fiscal policy has not been very sound. We have been borrowing so many dollars from overseas. Our current account deficit is so large. We have been consuming at such rapid rates that, finally, the chickens are beginning to come home to roost. The dollar is starting to decline, and it is making it very difficult now for Americans, on the margin, to live at the same living standard.

With the dollar declining--and, again, it is declining because foreign investors are starting to think maybe it is wiser to invest their dollars, on the margin, elsewhere--when the dollar declines, that means imports are more expensive and consumers have to pay more than they currently have been paying for those same products. It means American companies are now able to raise their prices to the levels of the more expensive foreign imports. It means, frankly, that average Americans are facing more costs for the same goods.

On the other hand, the most wealthy people in America can invest in foreign currency and take advantage of the dollar. But the average American cannot do so. So what we are doing today, with our very high debt, is essentially lowering our living standards.

Further, the amount of U.S. Government debt held by foreigners is troubling. As of December, 2006, foreigners held an enormous $2.2 trillion of debt issued by the U.S. Government. For example, Japan held $644 billion of U.S. debt, and mainland China held $350 billion.

I might add that a lot of these foreigners are starting to change their investment patterns. They are developing sovereign wealth funds. They are diverting some of their currency holdings. China is a good example. They are not just buying U.S. Treasury notes, bills and bonds, they are starting to do more direct investing around the world. That too is starting to have, on the margin, a slightly negative effect on the dollar.

In December, 2001, foreigners held a total of $1 trillion in U.S. debt. Thus, foreign-held debt has increased from $1 trillion at that time, December 2001, to about $2.2 trillion in December, 2006. That is a 120-percent increase since 2001. Over time, the cumulative interest payments on these holdings will be very large.

The significant foreign holdings of U.S. debt create two more serious problems. The first problem relates to a falling dollar, as I have mentioned. If the dollar falls, the value to foreign holders of U.S.- issued securities falls. If the dollar continues to fall, at some point, foreigners may become scared of further drops. To protect themselves, they may sell their holdings of U.S.-issued securities. And a large sell-off could happen precipitously and cause interest rates in the United States to rise immediately. A recession would likely follow.

I am not saying that is going to happen, but I am saying the probability of that happening is getting greater and greater and greater with the passage of each day.

Today, the dollar is at another all-time low against the Euro, and the Canadian dollar has reached parity with the U.S. dollar for the first time since the 1970s. If the dollar continues to fall, we could see foreigners selling off U.S.-issued securities at some point.

The second problem concerns our national security. Currently, almost 60 percent of U.S. debt held by foreigners is in the hands of foreign central banks or other official foreign government institutions. That amounts to about $1.3 trillion--clearly, an enormous figure.

So what happens if we get into a trade dispute with one of these countries, or a military or diplomatic dispute? The government of one of these countries could prevail upon its official institutions to threaten to sell off some or all of its holdings of U.S.-issued debt. If such an action occurred, it would drive up interest rates in the United States and cause a recession. The threat of such action would give the foreign country significant leverage in its trade or military or diplomatic dispute with the United States, which would be very unfortunate.

Again, I am not saying it is going to happen right away, or it is going to happen at all. But I am saying, given the deterioration of our fiscal situation, it is, on the margin, slowly, inevitably, irrevocably giving these other countries more leverage over us in any policy dispute they may have with us.

The revenue and spending laws that have helped to create the need for this huge jump in the debt ceiling were enacted some time ago. We piled up huge budget deficits in recent years by not having enough revenues to pay for our spending. So the Treasury had no alternative but to borrow funds to make up the difference, because we, obviously, had been spending more than we were taking in. The Treasury, therefore, had to borrow. And that is the problem; it is the added borrowing year after year after year after year in the amounts I have already indicated.

The responsible thing to do right now is to raise the debt ceiling because we have to. This debt ceiling is similar to a credit card. The bill is due. You have to pay what is on the credit card. But the goal is to make sure there aren't future increases in that credit card bill. We have to pay what the credit card bill is. That is the legal obligation. So there is no choice, and it is the responsible thing to do. But it is also the responsible thing to do to reduce the need to raise the debt ceiling again in the future.

We need to stop running annual deficits in our Federal budget. We need to stop cutting taxes when we cannot afford to do so. We need to stop increasing spending when we cannot afford to do so. It is easy around here to cut taxes, it is easy around here to raise spending. Fortunately, we have these pay-go rules now which makes it that much more difficult to do, and we have to basically heed the basic principles behind pay-go.

The beginning of the retirement of the baby boom generation next year will create needs for even more spending. Our ability to achieve balanced budgets will become more difficult. Nonetheless, we ought to balance the budget. It is the right thing to do. It would send the right signals in so many ways all across the country and around the world that we are getting our act together and living within our means. It is such a powerful force, in my judgment. We have to do it, otherwise we are going to keep piling up more and more debt and the dollar is going to potentially continue to fall, and living standards will continue to fall for Americans. So let us raise the debt ceiling now because we have no choice. But let us also work together to balance the budget in years to come. That is the only way we can keep from

having to enact more increases in the debt limit in the future. When it comes to that burden as well, there is no choice either.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, all time for debate on the debt limit has been utilized. In the interest of giving Senators some notice to get here in time for a vote, I alert all Senators that we will probably begin the vote first on the children's health insurance bill and, following that, the debt limit. That will begin sometime between 7:20 and 7:25. So within about 5 minutes we will begin voting on the children's health insurance plan.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I appreciate the leadership my colleagues have shown on this important issue. Extending the section 508 program is a priority of the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached to include this provision in this bill.

I assure my colleagues that I am committed to working to address concerns about this issue as part of any Medicare related legislation that may come before the Senate.

I share my colleague's support for the Critical Access Hospital Program. Like North Dakota, Montana struggles to maintain sufficient access to hospital care. The Critical Access Hospital Program has been an important component in ensuring that our hospitals can remain open and continue to serve Medicare beneficiaries.

I applaud my colleague's efforts on this issue and assure you that I am committed to working with you to enact modifications and improvements to the Critical Access Hospital Program in Medicare legislation later this year that will assist hospitals like St. Joseph's.

I ask unanimous consent that George Serletis, Mollie Lane, Tim Kehrer, Sam Anderson, Amanda Mitchell, and Travis Cossitt of my Finance Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the floor debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. President, King David sang:

How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in

unity!

When it comes to work here in Congress, the Children's Health Insurance Program has been as close to that ideal as a major piece of legislation can be. It began 10 years ago, with Senators working together across the political spectrum: Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy; Senators John Chafee and Jay Rockefeller. I was proud to have been part of that.

It passed overwhelmingly 10 years ago, and the President signed it into law. It worked.

The Children's Health Insurance Program brought people together across political divides because CHIP was, and always has been, about helping kids. CHIP has been about helping young Americans who, through no fault of their own, live in working families who cannot afford expensive private health insurance. It is about kids. It is about health. It is about low-income kids.

CHIP is about kids going to the doctor. It is about kids having checkups. It is about kids getting vaccinations. It is about kids seeing the dentist.

Healthy children are more likely to go to school. They are more likely to do well in school. They are more likely to get a good job after school. They are less likely to end up on welfare. They are more likely to become a productive member of the workforce.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has been a success. Since 1997, the share of all American children without health insurance dropped by a fifth, while the number of uninsured adult Americans increased. For our country's poorest children, the uninsured rate has dropped by a third.

Governors from both parties support the Children's Health Insurance Program. Two Presidents of different parties have supported and expanded CHIP.

This year, we worked together to improve and extend the program. Senators Orrin Hatch and Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Grassley and I worked very closely together, with many meetings, working as hard as we could, focusing on kids. We cooperated in the finest tradition. I thank my colleagues for the hundreds of hours they put into that effort.

Some told me: Put CHIP in reconciliation. That is the fast-track process we use sometimes around here. Some said: Use the fast-track budget process to pass CHIP, so you do not have to get big majorities to get things done. You do not have to worry about 60 votes. But I said: No. CHIP has always been a consensus bill. We would make CHIP a consensus bill again this year. It has in the past. It should always be.

That is what we did. The Finance Committee reported the CHIP bill out by a vote of 17 to 4, strongly bipartisan. The Senate passed it by a vote of 68 to 31. This evening, the House of Representatives will pass essentially the same CHIP bill we passed in the Senate.

Now it is time for us to pass this bill and send it to the President. When we do, it will be time for the President to show he is also a uniter, he is not a divider but a uniter. It will be a time for the President to act in the best traditions of compassionate conservatism. It will be a time for the President to sign this bill.

Let us show how good and pleasant it can be for Washington to work together in unity. That is what our people want. That is what the people who sent us here want. They want us working together. They do not like big fights, so long as we are doing what they regard is basically, essentially the right thing. This is that, clearly. So let us help get health care to kids who need it, and let us enact this CHIP bill into law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

First, I deeply congratulate the chair of the committee, Senator Boxer. She worked very hard and on a strong bipartisan basis to get this legislation where it is, working with Senator Inhofe. I thank him equally.

I also wish to thank Senator Isakson, the ranking member of the subcommittee, concerning this legislation.

And hats off to Senator Jim Jeffords. Senator Jeffords and his staffer, Catharine Ransom, deserve special thanks because for years they have been working on this legislation. I wanted first to thank him for his efforts as well. I know if he were here with us today, he would be very happy getting this legislation passed.

We westerners have been plagued recently with several years of drought. Ranchers and farmers across my State of Montana have watched their livelihood dry up before their eyes. The West's battle with drought highlights the pressing needs to ensure our water resources are used efficiently because it does not rain in the West. It may rain in Washington, DC, and other parts of the country, but it doesn't rain in the West.

This conference report provides authority for the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward with long overdue water resources projects. Levees are crumbling, people are living in harm's way waiting for this legislation. The tragedy in Minnesota highlights that need. This conference report authorizes projects that will provide needed flood and storm damage protection, navigation improvements, and environmental restoration. Clearly, there

is authority here well needed, long overdue, for rebuilding and restoring the coast of Louisiana, devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Several projects are very important to my State of Montana: the Yellowstone River and tributaries recovery project; the Lower Yellowstone Project at Intake, MT; the Missouri River and tributaries recovery project; the upper basin of the Missouri River project; and a riverfront revitalization project in Missoula.

There is also a very important authorization for the rehabilitation and improvement of a very important aging water project we called the Hi-Line Region of Montana, called the St. Mary diversion. This system is rusting, it is cracking, and it is crumbling. If you go out and see it, you are stunned how much this is deteriorating. But 17,000 Montanans on the Hi-Line depend on this 90-year-old system for their drinking water. Without St. Mary, lower Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 years, imperiling the water source to thousands of Montana families.

These projects and their importance to the communities and the projects they serve underlie the need for this conference report. We passed it last year. Let's get it enacted again this year.

Mr. President, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote: ``The time is always ripe to do right.''

This week, the time is ripe to do right by America's children.

Last Friday, my colleagues and I unveiled a strong, bicameral agreement to renew and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program.

CHIP covers kids whose parents don't qualify for Medicaid, but who cannot afford costly private insurance.

CHIP works to get health coverage to uninsured kids in America's working families.

The agreement we reached to renew CHIP will make sure that more than 6\1/2\ million children with health coverage today will keep that coverage.

The agreement we reached will make sure that millions more low- income, uninsured American children get a healthy start.

It is a good agreement. It is fiscally responsible. It has broad support across the Congress. And most importantly, it puts children first.

In August, 68 Senators voted for nearly the exact same $35 billion agreement to renew and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program. They

voted to reach millions more uninsured children in low-income, working families.

This week, Senators can stand up for kids again.

I know that there is pressure from the White House. The White House is asking Senators to turn away this time.

But the President is endangering children when he distorts what this bill does. The President is endangering children when he repeats his veto threats.

Moreover, the agreement does exactly what the President says it should.

The agreement will target the Children's Health Insurance Program toward the lowest-income eligible children. It will give States bonus funding for enrolling the poorest kids for health care. And it will reduce Federal funding for children in higher-income families.

The agreement will not raise the eligibility level for CHIP. That will still be for the administration and the States to decide. That is how the CHIP law was written in 1997, by a Republican-led Congress. We do not change that.

Our goal is to reach more of the low-income, uninsured children who are already eligible for CHIP today. Our goal is to keep the program for kids.

That is why our agreement will curb coverage of adults in CHIP.

It will improve the kids' coverage in so many ways, from outreach for minority communities to dental care for every child who enrolls.

In addition, a straight extension of CHIP at current funding, or at the President's cut-rate budget proposal, will cause thousands, even millions of children to lose their health coverage.

Many families would have no choice at all to get health care for their kids. They would have no way to pay the doctor. They would have no way to buy the medicine.

But CHIP can get kids in working families the doctor's visits and medicines that they need when they're sick. CHIP can get them the checkups that they need to stay well.

In 10 years, the Children's Health Insurance Program has reduced the number of low-income children living without health insurance by one- third.

And 82 percent of Americans want Congress to cover more low-income, uninsured kids with CHIP.

This week, Congress is heeding the call. This week, we will choose to do right by America's kids.

The President should look beyond politics. The President should look to the faces of America's uninsured children.

The President should see that the time is ripe for him to do right, as well.

I thank my colleagues, and urge their support for America's children this week.

Mr. President, today we have before us an important piece of legislation, the FDA Amendments Act of 2007. It has come to my attention that this bill includes a section that makes an effort to authorize the FDA to use and release Medicare claims data for use in postmarket surveillance of drugs approved by the FDA. I fully support the goal of making drugs safer for all Americans.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, however, I am obligated to point out that any use of Medicare data is exclusively governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and that the Finance Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over title XVIII. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy, to acknowledge that the Senate Finance Committee has sole jurisdiction over Medicare data and title XVIII of the Social Security Act and ask that he endeavor to consult us on matters before the HELP Committee that touch on the Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I make the same commitment to him that he makes to me: I will commit to consult on matters before the Finance Committee that touch on the Senate HELP Committee's jurisdiction.

To avoid unnecessary confusion as to the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee or further delay in the consideration of this important conference agreement, I would agree to accommodate your request to withhold any objection to the Senate's consideration of it with the acknowledgement that the release and use of Medicare data are governed by title XVIII of the Social Security Act and are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. This does not represent any waiver of jurisdiction on the part of the Finance Committee on this subject.

I would ask the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Kennedy, whether he would agree to this request.

I thank the chairman. I intend to continue working with my good friend Senator Grassley to address the release and use of Medicare data by Federal health agencies and private researchers soon through legislation written by the Finance Committee.