Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment with my good friend from Montana, Jon Tester. Our amendment would repeal all references to REAL ID in the immigration bill.

Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once wrote that ``the right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.''

If the right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom, then Real ID is a step toward the end.

REAL ID creates the framework for a national ID card and is a big Federal unfunded mandate. In sum, REAL ID requires two things:

No. 1, Federal agencies can only accept State-issued driver's licenses in compliance with new Federal regulations. These new regulations would require all State-issued licenses to include a cardholder's personal information such as their home address and their fingerprints.

No. 2, this information would then, by law, be accessible by all other States on an electronic database.

These requirements may sound harmless to many, but REAL ID has serious flaws. Three merit special attention.

No. 1, REAL ID puts America on track for a national ID card. This raises both privacy and practicality concerns.

No. 2, REAL ID represents a large unfunded mandate on the States.

No. 3, REAL ID poses a potential national security risk by dictating to States where their precious homeland security dollars should be spent, and it creates a magnet for identity theft.

Let me take a moment to walk through these concerns individually.

The standardized national driver's licenses created by REAL ID could become a key part of a system of identity

papers--similar to a national ID. These standards would require State DMVs to collect extensive personal information from all cardholders.

To issue a driver's license, the DMV will be required to collect birth certificates, utility bills, and other documents to verify an individual's residency. These documents would then be stored within the DMV database and accessible by all 50 States.

The machine-readable technology required by REAL ID will enable businesses from taverns to airlines to collect personal information about their clients. They could then sell this personal information to anyone willing to pay.

In addition, Federal agencies could use this new ID as an ``internal passport,'' tracking American's movements around the country.

Americans will need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane or open a bank account. Seniors will need a new ID to collect Social Security payments. Citizens will need a new driver's license to take advantage of nearly any Government service.

Finally, REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain American's actual addresses. No post office boxes are allowed. The legislation fails to offer exceptions for judges or police. I can't imagine how such a violation of privacy could make our Nation more secure.

In addition to causing problems for individuals, REAL ID is a nightmare for the States. REAL ID requires States to remake their driver's licenses, restructure their computer databases, and create extensive new document-storage systems.

It is no wonder, therefore, why 15 States have passed legislation rejecting REAL ID. Another 11 have pushed bills rejecting REAL ID through one of their legislative chambers.

From Washington State to Maine, Nevada to Georgia, red States and blue States, coastal States and the bread basket, all agree--they will not accept the provisions of REAL ID.

In my home State of Montana, REAL ID has caused real headaches. It is estimated that it would cost $2.6 million for Montana to comply with

Mr. President, the tax provisions included in this bill would help small businesses to succeed. These provisions would spur investment and thus create jobs. They would provide greater opportunity for workers looking for a job. They all enjoy strong support.

The bill helps businesses to provide jobs for workers who have experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending and expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC.

WOTC encourages businesses to hire workers who might not otherwise find work. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay to economically disadvantaged employees. WOTC has been remarkably successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is highly cost-effective. The business community is highly supportive of these credits. Industries like retail and restaurants that hire many low-skill workers find it especially useful.

The bill would extend WOTC for more than 3 years, and the bill would increase and expand the credit for employers who hire disabled veterans. The bill would also expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire people in counties that have suffered significant population losses.

To carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners are often required to invest significant amounts of money in depreciable property, such as machinery. The bill would help business owners to afford these large purchases for their businesses. To do so, the bill would extend for another year expensing under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code.

New equipment and property are necessary to successfully operate a business. But large business purchases generally require depreciation across a number of years, and depreciation requires additional bookkeeping.

Expensing under section 179 allows for an immediate 100-percent deduction of the cost for most personal property purchased for use in a business. The bill increases the expensing limit from $112,000 to $125,000, and the bill increases the phase-out threshold from $450,000 to $500,000 for 2007.

When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping burdens.

The bill includes a package of tax incentives to help recovery of small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The bill also requires GAO to conduct a study on how State and local governments have allocated and utilized the tax incentives that have been provided for these areas since 2005. We want to make sure that the tax incentives that Congress provided for hurricane recovery are being properly used, and we want to make sure that these incentives are providing the much-needed help for which they were created.

Tips received by restaurant employees are treated as wages for purposes of Social Security taxes. As such, employers must pay Social Security taxes on tips received by their employees. These employers receive a business tax credit for taxes paid on tip income in excess of the Federal minimum wage rate. The bill would prevent a decrease in the amount of this business tax credit that restaurant owners may claim despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Currently, if a small business jointly owned by a married couple files taxes as a sole proprietorship, only the filing spouse receives credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. Furthermore, unless the married couple is located in a community property State, both the married couple and the business are subject to penalties for failing to file as a partnership.

The bill would allow an unincorporated business that is jointly owned by a married couple in a common law State to file as a sole proprietorship without penalty. The bill would also ensure that both spouses receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Current law limits a small business' ability to claim WOTC and the tip credit by imposing a limitation that such credits cannot be used to offset taxes that would be imposed under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. The bill would provide a permanent waiver for WOTC and the tip credit and would allow WOTC and the tip credit to be taken under AMT.

The bill would help small businesses by modifying S corporation rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the ``sting tax.'' These modifications would improve the viability of community banks.

The tax language included in the bill is a responsible package. It would ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses.

And we have also paid for it.

The offsets include a proposal to discourage the practice of transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding higher tax rates.

The offsets also include proposals to improve tax administration.

The offsets would allow the IRS more time to notify the taxpayer about a deficiency before it must stop charging interest and penalties. The offsets include making permanent the fees that the IRS is authorized to charge for private letter rulings and other forms of guidance.

The offsets also enhance penalties that the IRS may impose when taxpayers and preparers do not comply with the law. The offsets would also prohibit employers from using the collection due process to delay or prevent the IRS from collecting delinquent trust fund employment taxes.

The hard-working American taxpayers whom we are trying to help in this bill should not have to pay more in taxes because some taxpayers are abusing the tax system.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the tax provisions of H.R. 2206. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It will be available on the Joint Committee's website at www.house.gov/jct.

These are sound tax policy changes. Let's finally enact an increase in the minimum wage, and let's also pass this useful package of tax benefits to help America's small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, for years, Congress has not been able to answer the question, ``What can be done about rising medical malpractice insurance premiums?'' Today, Senator Enzi and I begin a process we hope will end with action by Congress to resolve the problem.

The discussions the Senate has had about medical malpractice premiums until now have centered around imposing caps on noneconomic damages. The debate over caps has occurred several times in recent years, and has always ended with a failure to invoke cloture to vote on the legislation.

I have consistently opposed caps legislation because caps have been unsuccessful in preventing increases in medical malpractice premiums in my home State of Montana, as well as several other States. Clearly, it is time for a different approach.

The problem of rising insurance premiums affects the medical community, the legal community and, most importantly, patients. Doctors, burdened with continually-increasing insurance costs, have chosen to retire early, relocate their practices, or limit the services they provide to avoid high-risk procedures. Lawyers are concerned that reforms limit patients' ability to be compensated for their injuries. While patients find themselves caught in the middle, with ever- decreasing access to medical and legal services.

One of the reasons caps do not offer significant hope for improving the situation is that they treat the symptom of increasing premiums but not the underlying disease. We need to look for solutions that get to the root of the problem.

Any successful resolution to the problem must focus on compensating injured patients and on attempting to prevent similar injuries in the future. A 1999 Institute of Medicine study, To Err is Human, estimated that medical errors cause as many as 98,000 deaths per year in our Nation's hospitals alone. Even more deaths occur over the long-term and outside hospitals.

I think a new approach is in order. As such, Senator Enzi and I introduced the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act in the 109th Congress, and we are here today to reintroduce it. Our bill is innovative in how it confronts the problem.

We believe that a solution to this complex problem requires flexibility. We believe that because the civil justice system is largely a function of State law, the States are best situated to decide how their systems can be improved to work better for patients. We also believe that changes of this order should be tested and well thought out rather than simply mandated. There is no one size fits all answer.

So, our bill provides flexibility, leaves the decision-making to States and provides for demonstration programs to implement change in a thoughtful way. We owe a debt of gratitude to the experts at the Institute of Medicine for their 2002 report entitled, Fostering Rapid Advances in Health

Care: Learning from System Demonstration, for helping shape the Fair and Reliable Justice Act.

Our bill promotes State-based demonstrations of alternatives to current medical liability litigation. It aims to increase the number of patients who receive compensation for their injuries. It also tries to improve the speed with which they receive such compensation. The bill also encourages patient safety by promoting disclosure of medical errors, unlike the current tort system which encourages doctors to cover up medical mistakes.

Because the insurance premium problem and civil justice remedies vary by state we feel that the States are best positioned to analyze their unique situations and most capable to implement an effective solution. Therefore, the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act would establish State-based demonstration programs. The bill allows States to develop new ways to address and resolve their health care dispute issues.

There are innovative efforts already in effect in the private sector and some States that have achieved some success. I think it is time to encourage more innovation, to expand the range of options, and to empower the states to experiment and learn how to solve this persistent problem.

I want to thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to have worked with him. I also want to recognize Representatives Cooper and Thornberry, who are dropping a companion bill in the House today. This bill approaches the medical liability insurance premium problem from a new perspective, through a set of common-sense pilot projects centered on improving patient safety. Rather than mandating a Federal band-aid for this recurring problem, this bill encourages the States to be innovative and creative to solve the problem while giving them flexibility and Federal support to implement their cures.

Mr. President, for years, Congress has not been able to answer the question, ``What can be done about rising medical malpractice insurance premiums?'' Today, Senator Enzi and I begin a process we hope will end with action by Congress to resolve the problem.

The discussions the Senate has had about medical malpractice premiums until now have centered around imposing caps on noneconomic damages. The debate over caps has occurred several times in recent years, and has always ended with a failure to invoke cloture to vote on the legislation.

I have consistently opposed caps legislation because caps have been unsuccessful in preventing increases in medical malpractice premiums in my home State of Montana, as well as several other States. Clearly, it is time for a different approach.

The problem of rising insurance premiums affects the medical community, the legal community and, most importantly, patients. Doctors, burdened with continually-increasing insurance costs, have chosen to retire early, relocate their practices, or limit the services they provide to avoid high-risk procedures. Lawyers are concerned that reforms limit patients' ability to be compensated for their injuries. While patients find themselves caught in the middle, with ever- decreasing access to medical and legal services.

One of the reasons caps do not offer significant hope for improving the situation is that they treat the symptom of increasing premiums but not the underlying disease. We need to look for solutions that get to the root of the problem.

Any successful resolution to the problem must focus on compensating injured patients and on attempting to prevent similar injuries in the future. A 1999 Institute of Medicine study, To Err is Human, estimated that medical errors cause as many as 98,000 deaths per year in our Nation's hospitals alone. Even more deaths occur over the long-term and outside hospitals.

I think a new approach is in order. As such, Senator Enzi and I introduced the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act in the 109th Congress, and we are here today to reintroduce it. Our bill is innovative in how it confronts the problem.

We believe that a solution to this complex problem requires flexibility. We believe that because the civil justice system is largely a function of State law, the States are best situated to decide how their systems can be improved to work better for patients. We also believe that changes of this order should be tested and well thought out rather than simply mandated. There is no one size fits all answer.

So, our bill provides flexibility, leaves the decision-making to States and provides for demonstration programs to implement change in a thoughtful way. We owe a debt of gratitude to the experts at the Institute of Medicine for their 2002 report entitled, Fostering Rapid Advances in Health

Care: Learning from System Demonstration, for helping shape the Fair and Reliable Justice Act.

Our bill promotes State-based demonstrations of alternatives to current medical liability litigation. It aims to increase the number of patients who receive compensation for their injuries. It also tries to improve the speed with which they receive such compensation. The bill also encourages patient safety by promoting disclosure of medical errors, unlike the current tort system which encourages doctors to cover up medical mistakes.

Because the insurance premium problem and civil justice remedies vary by state we feel that the States are best positioned to analyze their unique situations and most capable to implement an effective solution. Therefore, the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act would establish State-based demonstration programs. The bill allows States to develop new ways to address and resolve their health care dispute issues.

There are innovative efforts already in effect in the private sector and some States that have achieved some success. I think it is time to encourage more innovation, to expand the range of options, and to empower the states to experiment and learn how to solve this persistent problem.

I want to thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to have worked with him. I also want to recognize Representatives Cooper and Thornberry, who are dropping a companion bill in the House today. This bill approaches the medical liability insurance premium problem from a new perspective, through a set of common-sense pilot projects centered on improving patient safety. Rather than mandating a Federal band-aid for this recurring problem, this bill encourages the States to be innovative and creative to solve the problem while giving them flexibility and Federal support to implement their cures.

Mr. President, I understand under the order, Senator Sessions is to be recognized to speak for a period of time.

I have consulted with Senator Sessions. I asked if it was OK if I proceeded for 5 minutes preceding his remarks. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of our troops. There are few things as important as the gift of one's labor, one's love, one's life. Our soldiers are asked to make generous sacrifices of these precious commodities every day. Our finest young soldiers work 19 hours a day in hot, dry, dangerous places such as Fallujah and Kabul. They do so because they have a deep love of country. Many of our soldiers make the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. Increasingly, we are asking more and more of our soldiers. In April, Secretary Gates announced he is extending the tours of duty for active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months. Our troops have already accomplished so much: deposed Saddam Hussein, toppled the Taliban, responded to the threats posed by vicious terrorists around the world. They have done everything we have asked of them. I was, therefore, disappointed when I came across a newspaper article this weekend noting that the administration opposes a modest pay raise for American soldiers.

The House Defense authorization bill includes a one-half of 1 percent increase in military pay above the President's request. For the average new enlistee, this will amount to roughly $75 per year in extra pay-- clearly, not enough to cover additional costs: school clothes for kids, a family trip to the ballpark, a few tanks of gas at the prices we are stuck paying.

The increase is aimed at reducing the gap in pay between comparable military and civilian jobs that stands at about 4 percent today. Even after the proposed increase, that gap will remain at least 1.4 percent, clearly not keeping up with civilian pay increases.

Of the billions of dollars we spend on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would seem absurd to oppose this small pay bump, but that is exactly what the administration is doing. In a May 17, 2007, letter to the House Armed Services Committee, the President's budget director announced the pay increase included in the House bill is ``unnecessary.'' I believe it is necessary. I believe it is necessary to do anything we can to provide for the welfare of our fighting men and women. Salaries for newly minted enlistees start at about $15,600 per year. To put this in perspective, new enlistees with three or more dependents are eligible for food stamps.

Among the sacrifices we ask of our men and women in harm's way, going hungry should not be one of them. In addition, the administration opposes a $40 per month increase in allowances for the widows of slain soldiers. Again, this is a modest bump in benefits and pales in comparison to the sacrifice these families have made. Forty dollars a month extra won't make it any easier to face another day without a loved one who is lost, but it could help pay the rent, keep the heat on, and relieve a bit of stress for families facing a new world without their spouse. That is why I am urging the administration to reconsider their opposition to a pay increase and additional survivor benefit. Supporting our troops is something we all agree on, Republicans and Democrats alike.

I ask the President to reconsider his opposition to increased pay for our soldiers and aid for this war's widows. We may not all agree on what we should do in Iraq going forward, but I believe we can and should reach a simple accommodation on troop pay.

Mr. President, I see my friend getting prepared. I ask for 1 or 2 minutes' indulgence.

children's health

Mr. President, in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, the book of Ben Sirah counsels: ``Observe the opportunity.''

This year, the Senate has the opportunity to improve the health of millions of American children, for the next decade.

The Senate has the opportunity to renew and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP.

Let us seize the opportunity.

There is no greater health care priority for me this year.

In a few short weeks, the Finance Committee will consider legislation to reauthorize and strengthen this successful 10-year-old program.

Many of us were present in this Chamber when we created CHIP in 1997. Since then, this program has proven to be a true success.

Since its inception, CHIP has brought health insurance to more than 40 million low-income children.

It has saved the lives of many children, and it has improved the availability and quality of care for many more.

In my home State of Montana, Fawn Tuhy has some pretty active kids. Montana is a State full of active kids, and active kids get hurt.

Fawn's 2-year-old needed stitches after hitting her head. Fawn's 6- year-old broke his arm twice.

Fawn's medical bills could have sunk their family of six. But she credits CHIP with keeping her kids healthy, and her family afloat.

CHIP has made that kind of difference for millions of Americans, in the last 10 years.

Among families with incomes less than about $34,000 a year--that is twice the poverty level--the share of uninsured children has dropped by a quarter.

CHIP has held the number of uninsured children down, even as the number of uninsured adult Americans has increased.

But Congress cannot rest on its laurels. We have to continue CHIP. We have to build on its success, and we have to do it before CHIP's funding expires, on September 30.

The Finance Committee is poised to act, with a markup early next month.

In this reauthorization, we will pursue five principles:

First, we must provide adequate funds to keep coverage for those who have it now.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that CHIP needs an additional $13.4 billion, just to maintain current coverage.

Maintaining level funding is just not good enough. If funding stays flat, then 4 million American children could lose health coverage, over the next 10 years.

Second, we must also reach the 6 million uninsured children who are eligible for either CHIP or Medicaid coverage but not enrolled.

CBO says that the best opportunity to further reduce the number of uninsured children is to target CHIP enrollment toward more families whose incomes are below twice the poverty level.

Third, we must support State efforts to expand CHIP coverage to more kids. States have found innovative ways to reach as many uninsured kids as possible. States have acted according to their unique abilities and needs.

Fourth, we must improve the quality of health care that children receive.

We are making great strides to improve the quality of health care for adults through Medicare. Yet there is no comparable investment in quality

standards for children. We can and must do more.

Fifth, whatever we do, we must not add to the numbers of the uninsured.

Right now, Federal waivers let some States provide CHIP coverage to pregnant women, to parents of eligible children, and even to some adults without children.

Congress may not want CHIP to cover all those groups in the future, but we must not pull the rug out from under anyone who has health coverage today.

Too many CHIP recipients are already in imminent danger. Right now, 14 State programs are facing shortfalls for this year--even before CHIP's 10-year authorization expires.

I worked hard to include funds to cover funding shortfalls in the supplemental appropriations bill.

But even if we fix this year's shortfalls, many more States will face funding gaps in the coming years. We need to ensure greater predictability and stability of CHIP funding.

Ten years ago, we simply did not know how much funding CHIP would take. We know much more now, and we should make the appropriate financial commitment to keep kids healthy. We must take a forward- thinking approach.

We must consider the likelihood of continuing increases in health care costs, and we must consider likely population changes.

We must consider that a child born today may have a shorter life expectancy than his or her parents. But that is what we face, due to the threats of obesity and related illnesses. So reauthorization must strengthen prevention and early screening benefits.

As we tackle CHIP, we should keep in mind the deep need for broader health reform. There are still too many families whose health stories don't have happy endings. CHIP cannot help them all. But it should help more.

One morning last year, Kearstin Jacobson woke up in Whitefish, MT, with a severe headache. Tests showed that the high school senior had a clot, preventing the blood flow from her brain.

Kearstin got wonderful care. But it cost almost a quarter of a million dollars, and her family did not have health insurance.

So even as the hospital staff wheeled Kearstin out of the emergency room, this young lady with a life-threatening condition was worried about money.

She was telling her parents how concerned she was about the financial burdens that her care would cause.

Kearstin feared that her parents would be paying for her care for many years to come, and they are.

This year, Congress has a historic opportunity to help families like Kearstin's.

We have an opportunity to make a good health policy for children even better.

An overwhelming majority of Americans support CHIP.

I extend my hand to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's work together.

CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. It is an American priority.

America's kids are depending on us to do this right. We must not disappoint them.

Let us observe the opportunity to improve the health of millions of American children. Let us observe the opportunity to give peace of mind and financial security to millions of families. And let us renew and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I thank the Senator from Alabama and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Airland Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the airland programs and provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss reauthorization of the Federal rail safety program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in

room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 645, a bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide an alternate sulfur dioxide removal measurement for certain coal gasification project goals; S. 838, a bill to authorize funding joint ventures between United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons; S. 1089, a bill to amend the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act to follow the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation projects to hire employees more efficiently, and for other purposes; S. 1203, a bill to enhance the management of electricity programs at the Department of Energy; H.R. 85, a bill to provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies; and H.R. 1126, a bill to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing entitled ``Examining the Case for the California Waiver.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 3 p.m. for a hearing titled ``Implementing FEMA Reform: Are We Prepared for the 2007 Hurricane Season?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Restoring Habeas Corpus: Protecting American Values and the Great Writ'' for Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness list: RADM Donald Guter, USN (ret.), Dean, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA; William Howard Taft IV, Of Counsel Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC; Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Professor, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA; David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, DC; and Orin Kerr, Professor, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Minority Entrepreneurship: Assessing the Effectiveness of SBA's Programs for the Minority Business Community,'' on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, after the first rollcall vote of the day in the reception room adjacent to the Floor, to conduct a vote on the nomination of Dr. Michael J. Kussman to be Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Personnel Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 4 p.m. in closed session to mark up the Readiness and Management Support Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 9 a.m. in closed session to mark up the Seapower Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, be authorized to hold a hearing on the MINER Act during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Senate Dirksen office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``GAO Personnel Reform: Does it meet expectations?''

The joint hearing will take place in conjunction with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Subcommittee of Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the distinguished career of James F. Ahrens, who will soon retire as head of the Montana Hospital Association. Jim Ahrens has been a mainstay of Montana's health care community for over two decades, and I know that I speak for that community when I say that his presence as the head of MHA will be missed.

Jim Ahrens has served as president of MHA . . . An Association of Montana Health Care Providers, for nearly 21 years. Health care has changed a lot since the mid-1980s, in good ways and bad. Our scientists have developed remarkable new treatments. Yet, as ranks of the uninsured grow, many Americans can't take advantage of those treatments. We have prevented Medicare's trust fund from going broke. Yet the program still faces serious long-term fiscal challenges. We have enacted the most significant change Part D--in Medicare's history. Yet the new benefit has been marred by early administrative missteps.

As a key player in health care over the last two decades, I have relied on Jim to gain a better understanding of these ever-changing events. I have also come to know Jim as a close personal friend. When it comes to Jim, I don't have any `and yets.' I can think of no better example than that than his work on the Critical Access Hospital program.

Back in the late 1980s, a citizens' task force came up with the idea of a limited service hospital for rural and frontier areas. This new type of hospital would provide access to primary care in the most remote stretches of the country, while receiving a break from the strict regulatory requirements governing hospitals and health facilities. The Montana Legislature took the recommendations for this new type of facility and created a special licensure category.

As incoming leader of MHA, Jim's job was to bring the concept to life. Having just moved from Chicago to run the Montana Hospital Association, he hit the ground running. Jim worked with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services to develop a demonstration project for this

new type of facility. He and I then worked with the Federal Department of Health and Human Services' regional office in Denver to establish a demonstration project and secure a Federal grant to fund it.

This demonstration project--the Medical Assistance Facility Project-- was hugely successful and served as the model for the Critical Access Hospital Program that I authored in 1997. Today, more than 1,300 hospitals around the Nation enjoy CAH status, ensuring access to high- quality medical treatment in some of the most remote parts of our land.

I am very proud to have written that bill and to have made changes to improve the CAH program since then. I am just as proud to have worked with Jim in the process. With over 45 CAHs operating in Montana, the idea of a limited-service rural hospital has moved from concept to the mainstream. I have no doubt that the CAH Program has kept a number of Montana hospitals from closing. And when you are dealing with Montana- sized distances in health care, that can mean the difference between life and death.

Through it all, Jim has been a mainstay. Always patient and kind but always thinking ahead, his innovative style and vision have brought people together for a healthier Montana. He changed MHA . . . from a collection of hospitals to MHA . . . An Association of Montana Health Care Providers--a united group of hospitals, nursing homes, home health organizations, hospices, and physicians. He applied the same philosophy to form the Alliance for a Healthy Montana--a coalition of more than 25 health care organizations. The Alliance is now an effective and cohesive voice for health care change in Montana and came about almost solely because of Jim's efforts. Over the past 8 years, the Alliance has spearheaded three ballot initiatives, including one that reformed Montana's tobacco tax rate and two others that earmarked national tobacco settlement funds to pay for health care programs in Montana.

It makes sense that Jim would take the consensus approach that he did, working to build a coalition from a group constituencies that weren't obvious allies. After all, Jim has spent his entire career as an executive in health care associations. He understood--and showed by example--the powerful role associations can play in representing members' needs before Congress, legislatures, regulatory agencies, and private organizations.

As I said, Jim has been a trusted adviser to me throughout the last two decades. I have come to trust his perspective, judgment, and knowledge on health issues great and small. I have also benefited from Jim's friendship. He is a gracious, compassionate, and generous person--the kind of guy people like to be around. And while the people of MHA will miss having Jim around, I know that his family and friends look forward to seeing a bit more of this exceptional individual. Jim's transition will be complete on June 30, when he makes his retirement official. On behalf of a healthier Montana, we wish Jim Ahrens well.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank Rev. Paul Rowold, pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Polson, MT.

The prophet Isaiah wrote:

The Lord has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may

know how to sustain the weary with a word.

Thank you, Pastor Paul, for being here to sustain us today and opening our Senate in prayer.

Pastor Paul served Lutheran congregations in several other places in the country--Rockford, IL, and Englewood, CO--prior to his call to Polson, MT, in 1977.

Polson--for those of you who don't know, and I am sure more of you do--is a small community on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana. It sits at the south end of Flathead Lake, one of the largest natural freshwater--actually, to be precise, we have to get our adjectives lined up here--Flathead is the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi and, I might say, near some of the most pristine wilderness on the planet.

Pastor Paul is an expert on the Holy Land, and he has traveled there more than 20 times, both as an archaeologist and as a tour guide. We were just earlier talking about his experience as a tour guide and just how wonderfully warm he and his family have been received as tour guides when they have been in Palestine. It was very warm and encouraging just listening to him describe that.

He is here today with his wife Donna and two of his daughters, Katie and Stephanie, as well as with many of his extended family. They are all enjoying this moment with Pastor Paul, and we welcome all of you here today, too.

So, Paul, thank you for your life of faith, your leadership of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, and for your service to the community of Polson, MT, and to many others who I know attend your church.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I first congratulate the new chairman of the committee, Senator Boxer, for taking her first bill to the floor. She is doing a great job. It is out of committee virtually unanimously. She brought out a bill that was worked out in advance and she is doing a terrific job. I highly commend her.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.

Westerners, including the current occupant of the chair, have learned this painful lesson many times. Recently, several years of drought have plagued farmers and ranchers across my State of Montana and many other parts of the country. Weatherworn switch grass and crops bring a terrible cost to producers in the West.

The West's battle with drought highlights the pressing need to ensure our water resources are used efficiently. I remind my colleagues, it doesn't rain a lot in the West. The annual rainfall west of the 100th meridian, down from Minnesota and across the country, is much less than in the eastern part of the country. In Montana, the average precipitation--rain, snow, all of it--in our towns is roughly about 13 inches a year. In Washington, DC, it is about 44 inches a year. That is a big difference, and that is in ordinary years. We have had a lot of drought in the West in the last several years.

Therefore, this Water Resources Development Act is long overdue. Although the Senate passed this legislation last year, the conference with the House fell short of resolution, so we are here today to get this bill over the goal line. I think we will finally get there. The bill provides authority for the Corps of Engineers to move forward on many long overdue water resources projects.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. Every 2 years since then, Congress received proposals from the administration seeking authorization for water resources projects-- every 2 years, since 1986. Why? It is clearly because there are new needs every 2 years. This pattern of requests provided the Corps and local sponsors with a regular planning schedule, helped them know what was on the drawing boards, which projects would be developed first and second, with some regularity, the planning for the development of needed resource projects in our country.

This administration, however, has yet to request one update of this legislation. Why is that? Well, I ask the question: Have all the water resources needs of the country been met? Clearly, the answer is no. Scores of water resources projects are awaiting authorization.

Second, does this administration think this legislation costs too much? Perhaps, but remember, investing in our water resources infrastructure is a cost we cannot put off. This is not an annual recurring operating expense; it is an investment that pays huge dividends.

Levees are crumbling. People are living in harm's way, waiting for this legislation to help provide them with protection. This bill authorizes projects that will provide needed flood and storm damage protection, navigation improvements and environmental restoration. All three are very important.

There is authority for rebuilding and restoring the coast of Louisiana generally, but this legislation provides specific authority for that rebuilding and restoration, devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Authority for modernizing the lock and dam system on the Mississippi River is contained in here, and authority for ecosystem restoration projects, all the way from New Jersey, to Florida, to Colorado. There is a lot in this legislation.

The Corps of Engineers is charged with the management of America's water resources. The Corps of Engineers built levees and floats barges. In my State of Montana, we see the Corps as restorers of the ecosystem. We see the Corps as guardians of America's recreational assets, such as the Missouri River, Yellowstone River, and the Fort Peck Reservoir.

We in Montana have 11,000 miles of blue ribbon trout streams. Montana is home to the mighty Missouri River and the beautiful Yellowstone River. The Yellowstone is the longest remaining free-flowing river in our country. Montana's Fort Peck Reservoir provides outstanding recreation for the eastern part of my State. There is a huge fishing tournament in the Fort Peck Reservoir. The Corps helps make that happen.

We value the Corps' expertise and their partnership in many of our water resources projects. I might name several projects that are important and will continue that tradition in 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. These projects will all provide improvements and provide valuable protection for the valuable resources in our State and, with all the tourism coming to our States, for a lot of Americans as well.

There is also an important authorization for the rehabilitation and improvement of a very important large aging water project on the Blackfeet Reservation in Glacier County called St. Mary Diversion. This system is rusting, cracking, and crumbling before our eyes. It is deteriorating, and 17,000 Montanans on the highline--the northern part of the State--depend on this system. It is a Federal system, but it is falling apart.

Without St. Mary, the lower Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 years, imperiling the water source for thousands of Montana families. This is irrigation and also drinking water. I cannot believe that in the United States we don't have good drinking water in large parts of my State. That is an outrage.

These important water projects, and their importance to the communities the projects serve, underline the need to move this legislation forward. Our first priority, therefore, is to authorize the long overdue projects in the WRDA bill this year. I hope we can get the administration's support to do that this year. We passed a bill last year. Let's get it enacted this year. Let's do our part to ensure that our water resources needs are met and let's get back to the biennial practice of enacting a water development resources bill.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. President, I confirm a point made by our good friend from Missouri that there has been close cooperation in putting the bill together. I commend the Senator from Missouri. He has done a super job and so has Chairman Boxer, who is our leader. She sets the tone and gets us working together, and Senator Inhofe is right there with her. I thank the Senator for being helpful.

Mr. President, the pending emergency supplemental appropriations bill includes a number of items within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. I would have preferred that the Senate had considered these matters on legislation that the Finance Committee had reported. I believe in the committee process. In the future, I will try to minimize the occasions on which Finance Committee legislation travels on legislation reported by other committees.

But the House of Representatives included the minimum wage and small business tax provisions in the House-passed version of this supplemental appropriations bill. So it was only appropriate that the full Senate respond. The Senate Appropriations Committee added matters related to health care, so it was only appropriate that the conference committee on this supplemental appropriations bill address those issues, as well.

I appreciate that the conference committee on this supplemental appropriations bill deferred to members of the Finance Committee in the formulation of these Finance Committee tax and health matters in the conference report on this bill. I particularly thank Chairman Byrd for his assistance in this regard.

Some have been concerned that an increase in the minimum wage would burden small businesses. Small businesses are a vital source of job creation, economic opportunity, and technological innovation.

There are about 23 million small businesses in America. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees represent more than 99 percent of all businesses in America. They pay more than 45 percent of American private payroll. They have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade. They employ 41 percent of high-tech workers.

Small business is particularly important in my home State of Montana. Small businesses are the backbone of our communities.

We have the opportunity to help small businesses through tax incentives that stimulate their rates of formation and growth. That is why Chairman Rangel and I worked together to combine the House and Senate small business tax packages to achieve a comprehensive small business tax package.

This is a responsible package that will help small businesses in the context of an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. The technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

The small business tax package provided a more than 3-year extension of the work opportunity tax credit, or WOTC. WOTC allows employers a tax credit for wages that they pay to economically disadvantaged employees. The final small business tax package also expands WOTC to allow the credit for employers who hire disabled veterans, a proposal that was part of both the Senate and House packages. The package includes the Senate's proposed expansion to allow the credit for employers who hire employees in a county

that has suffered significant population loss.

The small business tax package also includes a 1-year extension of section 179 expensing. Section 179 allows small business owners to purchase and write off more equipment each year for use in their trade or business. Section 179 expensing was included in both the Senate and House small business tax packages. The final small business tax package also increases the amount allowed to be expensed in 2007 from $112,000 to $125,000, a proposal in the House version.

Enhancement of the tip credit, family business tax simplification, and waiver of limitations under the alternative minimum tax on WOTC and tip credits are three other House proposals included in the final small business tax package.

Enhancement of the tip credit for certain small businesses will prevent a decrease in the amount of business tax credit that restaurant and other service-oriented business owners may claim for the Social Security taxes that they pay on their employee's tips despite an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The family business tax simplification proposal ensures that when a married couple jointly owns a small business, both spouses will receive credit for paying Social Security and Medicare taxes.

The waiver of individual and corporate AMT limitations on WOTC and tip credits would allow business owners to take the WOTC and tip credits under AMT.

The Senate's S corporation package is also included in the final small business tax package. The S corporation package includes several simplifications and modifications to rules governing community banks and other small businesses that operate as S corporations.

The small business tax package includes several tax incentives included in both the Senate and House small business tax packages to help recovery of small business and low-income housing in areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

The small business tax package is a responsible package that is completely offset. The package includes offsets that were included in both the Senate and the House small business tax packages, such as modification to the interest suspension rules for IRS and a proposal to discourage the practice of transferring investments to one's child for the purpose of avoiding higher tax rates.

The package also includes modifications to the collection due process for employment taxes, an expansion of preparer penalties, and a new penalty on erroneous refund claims. These offsets were part of the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal to improve tax compliance.

The small business tax package does not include the Senate's 15-year depreciation proposal for improvements made to leaseholds, retailer- owned businesses, and restaurants. Nor does this final package include the Senate's proposal to expand availability of the cash method of accounting.

These proposals both have merit. They were included in the chairman's mark when the Finance Committee wrote the Senate's small business tax package. These proposals enjoy the support of many Senators, including Senators Kerry and Snowe. But there simply was not enough room in a $4.8 billion conference package to include the 15-year depreciation and cash method of accounting proposals, as they have a combined estimated pricetag of nearly $7.4 billion. But this will not be the last bill in which the Senate can address these important proposals.

If and when the President vetoes this bill, and it comes back again, we need to preserve the integrity of this balanced compromise. Congress should not litigate this tax package over again. I urge my colleagues to support this package.

This bill also accomplishes key urgent health priorities.

The bill includes emergency funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. This fiscal year, 14 States will run short in their Federal CHIP funds by a total of about $624 million. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 700,000 children will lose CHIP coverage unless Congress acts.

This bill fills the gap in Federal CHIP funds. It ensures that all States can meet the demand for CHIP coverage for all those now eligible for coverage this year.

I thank Chairman Byrd and Chairman Harkin for their help on this provision. Keeping children from losing their health coverage is a critical national priority. I will work with my colleagues to ensure that the final supplemental bill includes this provision.

Another provision originally offered by Senator Durbin puts a 1-year hold on rulemaking relating to Medicaid payment rates for public hospitals and nursing homes. In January, the Secretary of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that would make sweeping changes to reimbursement rates for public facilities. The rule also proposed major changes to how States can define which governmental facilities can pay a State's Medicaid share.

The Nation's Governors have weighed in against the Medicaid rule, as have many hospitals and nursing homes. They are concerned that this rule would do immediate harm to our Nation's safety net by cutting Medicaid reimbursement for publicly owned facilities that serve our most vulnerable citizens.

I am concerned this rule goes too far in implementing new policy, making changes that are better made by Congress.

It is Congress's job to make major changes to the law. A 1-year moratorium will give the Finance Committee enough time to study this issue and determine the right approach in legislation to limit opportunities for fraud and abuse of Medicaid, while protecting the vulnerable individuals and vital safety net providers who rely on Medicaid payments.

Some have raised concerns about the original Durbin amendment moratorium. They said that it should not have been included in an appropriations bill and that it could undermine oversight of Medicaid at the Department of Health and Human Services. I agree that we should keep Finance Committee issues within the committee. In this case, however, the Department is poised to act before July of this year. We need to take action now, before it is too late.

I also agree that protecting against fraud and abuse in Medicaid is a priority. Not one taxpayer dollar should be misspent. That is why the revised version of this amendment clarifies that the moratorium has no affect on all other Medicaid integrity enforcement activity at the Department of Health and Human Services.

This final version also removes the increase in the Medicaid prescription drug rebate that was used to offset the cost and replaces it with other Medicaid policies that will save Federal dollars. The new version includes provisions that will lower the incidence of fraud in Medicaid drug prescribing and preserve access to affordable prescriptions for 100,000 seniors covered by Wisconsin's Pharmacy Plus program.

I think this is the right approach. It provides a shorter moratorium that allows the Finance Committee to act and preserves oversight on fraud and abuse at the Department of Health and Human Services.

I will work with Senator Durbin and members of the Appropriations Committee to ensure that this version stays in the final bill.

Once again, I thank Chairman Byrd for his help in reaching this good outcome. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Retail Improvements

Mr. President, I understand and share the concerns expressed by Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe. I agree that owners and renters should receive the same tax treatment for improvements.

There are many small businesses in Montana in which the owners would like to make improvements. And this provision would be extremely helpful.

Just this week, I received an e-mail message from Scott Brown, the owner of The Base Camp in Helena, MT. Scott told me how this provision would help him and other Montana retailers to be more competitive.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to find additional opportunities to address this important provision.

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

Mr. President, in Ecclesiastes, the Preacher warns:

The race is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong,

nor does food come to the wise, or wealth to the brilliant,

or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them

all.

America is used to being the swiftest. We are used to being the strongest. America has become used to winning the race. We have become used to receiving the cream of the world's wealth. But we would do well to heed the warning of Ecclesiastes, for time and chance will happen to us, as well.

New global competitors have entered the race. Over time, they are growing stronger and more learned. America cannot leave winning the race to chance. We must redouble our speed. We must redouble our learning if we are not to fall behind.

That is why I started in June of 2005 delivering a series of addresses on America's economic leadership. That is why, during the last Congress and this one as well, I have introduced a series of bills addressing American competitiveness. Those bills dealt with education, with energy, with trade, research, and savings. That is why much of the work of the Finance Committee this Congress this year will address America's economic competitiveness.

The Finance Committee will shortly mark up education tax incentives. We will follow with tax incentives for cleaner and more renewable energy. This year we intend to extend trade adjustment assistance, and we hope to address small business health concerns as well. Each of these bills will help American businesses remain the world's leaders.

The bill before us will help, and it will help a lot. The bill before us will promote excellence in education, technology, and science. I hope to contribute a series of amendments to this bill. Each, I believe, will bolster America's economic competitiveness.

A noted MIT scholar once commented that:

The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be

the only sustainable competitive advantage.

Having an educated workforce able to learn and adapt is a cornerstone of a competitive agenda.

My first amendment thus encourages States to incorporate 21st century learning skills into their curriculum. This amendment would help our school systems teach skills to America's students that will best prepare them for tomorrow's economy.

America faces a world more integrated, more interdependent, and more competitive than ever. It is our challenge to succeed in this environment. It is our challenge to leave our children and grandchildren with an economy that is better than the one which we inherited. We must meet this challenge.

Meeting this challenge starts with addressing education in a new way. This bill is just a beginning.

We must change the way we look at education. As policymakers, we tend to look at our education challenge like a multiple choice test. We want to choose between a few simple options--more science and math classes, more AP classes, or better teachers. But the answers are not as simple as ``A,'' ``B,'' or ``C.''

We must look at our challenge as if it were a math proof. We must think through every step, to reach the end result. The process is as important as the outcome. The outcome must be appropriate for today's needs, but the outcome must also be appropriate for the needs of the future.

One hundred years from now--even 10 years from now--our society will be very different from what we see today.

If we find the right solution, our students will excel in school. If we find the right solution, our graduates will be ready to enter the workforce. If we find the right solution, America will retain its economic leadership. But if we look only for simple options, we may never reach a solution.

My first amendment will assist in the process of developing these solutions. My amendment will encourage school systems to think first and plan early. My amendment will encourage States to look at the big picture. My amendment will encourage States to look at education comprehensively.

My amendment encourages States to incorporate 21st century learning skills into the States' education plan.

Twenty-first century learning skills emphasize learning skills, collaboration, and communication skills.

Our students must know science and math, but more importantly, our students must excel in problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Our students must excel in financial, economic, and business literacy. It is these skills that students today will need to be successful tomorrow.

Our students must also be able to communicate effectively. Twenty- first century skills also include language learning.

This bill sets aside funding for foreign language programs, but in many rural areas like Montana there are not enough teachers. The way to help solve this problem is through distance learning.

That is why I also worked hard to include in the bill a provision to allow language funds to go to programs that use distance learning.

I am proud of programs such as the U.S. Arabic Distance Learning Network out of Montana State University. This program uses interactive video classrooms to allow two-way communication between the professor and students. This innovative solution is helping students to acquire important language skills.

We must look for more ways to be creative in our education methods. Our schools must adapt to new challenges. Our students must begin to learn the skills that companies need today, and students must learn the skills that companies anticipate needing tomorrow.

This bill is a piece of the process in solving the proof. I will continue working on this issue and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Many of the proposals in these amendments and this legislation are good solutions for serious problems, but addressing our problems is not enough. We must also improve the way we identify them. We must improve our diagnosis.

Getting the right diagnosis is especially important to the most dynamic sector of our economy--the services sector. Our economy has evolved from agriculture and manufacturing to services. Services industries today comprise 80 percent of our economy. Since 1990, private services industries have added over 22 million jobs. In our international trade picture, services are a bright spot. Where we so often see deficits, America has a surplus in services exports.

To keep this sector vigorous in a global market, we must track its health and development. But we don't.

Today, the Bureau of Economic Analysis does not produce annual, State-by-State, sector-specific services export data. Tracking this kind of export data is critical to knowing where our strengths and our weakness lie. These data are critical to knowing where jobs are being created and how to build on those successes. These data are equally critical to knowing where jobs are being lost, and to how we can best help those workers.

That is why I am offering an amendment to fund a program in the Bureau of Economic Analysis to study services exports in detail, annually, thoroughly, on a State-by-State basis. We know too little about this sector of our economy and its standing internationally. This amendment would remedy that.

I also have amendments to improve America's energy research. My amendment would double funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. That office is the largest supporter of physical sciences research in America. It would provide more than 40 percent of total funding in this area nationwide. The Office oversees a broad range of energy-related research, including that related to renewable energy.

For example, the Office of Science funds research and development projects at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL. NREL is the Nation's primary lab for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. The Finance Committee has heard testimony from two NREL representatives this year--Dr. Dan Arvizu, director of the lab, and Dr. Robert Farrington, manager of the lab's research on advanced vehicles.

Both of these individuals are very impressive. I believe strongly that we must support their work.

Unfortunately, that support has been lacking in recent years. In January, the New York Times outlined NREL's budget challenges. The Times pointed out that:

Money flowing into the nation's primary laboratory for

developing renewable fuels is actually less than it was at

the beginning of the Bush administration.

The lab got a bit of a boost after that story was published in January, but the administration's 2008 budget still plans a 3 percent cut for the lab.

We can fix that by doubling the Office of Science's budget over the next 5 years. This injection of resources would provide badly needed funding for NREL and the other national labs. The Office of Science would receive $3.8 billion for 2007, a small increase over last year's amount. My amendment would increase the Federal commitment to DOE's Office of Science to $8 billion by 2011. That is double what the office receives now, and that is more than a 50 percent increase over what is called for in the underlying bill.

This amendment is consistent with a recommendation of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of 20 of the Nation's leading energy experts. Last week, the commission recommended doubling Federal spending on energy-technology R&D.

But simply increasing funds for DOE's Office of Science is not enough. We also need to establish a new office of research outside DOE. My amendment to establish ARPA-E would do just that.

I am very pleased that the underlying bill proposes an Advanced Research Projects Authority--Energy, or ARPA-E.

The National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine joined to form the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. Norm Augustine chaired the committee. The committee recommended creating an ARPA-E: Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.

The new agency would be modeled on DARPA--the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency--in the Department of Defense. Among the revolutionary technologies that DARPA has developed are the Internet and stealth technology for aircraft.

The Augustine Committee recommended that ARPA-E be designed to conduct transformative, out-of-the-box energy research.

In the last Congress, and earlier this year, I introduced legislation to create an ARPA-E.

The bill before us today proposes a variation on my legislation by creating an ``authority'' within the Department of Energy, instead of an agency.

My amendment would move the ``authority'' out of the DOE and establish it as an agency, and my amendment would flesh out some of the details of the office.

My amendment proposes that ARPA-E be a small agency with a total of 250 people. A minimum of 180 of them would be technical staff. A director of the agency and four deputies would lead ARPA-E. My amendment proposes that ARPA-E be funded at $300 million in fiscal year 2008, ramping up to $2.0 billion in 2012.

With gasoline again rising to $3 a gallon and increased concerns about global warming, I believe we need to establish the most muscular ARPA-E possible. That is why my amendment frees the agency from the bureaucratic restrictions of the DOD, and that is why my amendment would elevate the status of the agency by establishing a direct reporting link to the President.

The underlying bill has taken a critical step forward by proposing an ARPA-E. It is now up to the Senate and House to make this terrific idea a reality to address the issues of energy security, energy supply, and global warming.

By advancing amendments like these, we can help to ensure America's economic leadership.

Let us thereby help to ensure that America's business remains the swiftest. Let us ensure that our economy remains strong. Let us not leave our economic future to time and chance.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Mary Stranahan. Dr. Stranahan is a retired medical doctor and an active philanthropist who lives in Arlee, MT. Arlee is a small town in western Montana located on the Flathead Indian Reservation in Lake County. Arlee is a place of incredible physical beauty, like so many places in Montana. But amid the beauty are poverty and economic challenges. Lake County ranks as one of the poorest counties in Montana. In her years as a practicing family physician in Lake County and on the reservation, Mary saw first-hand the relationship between limited economic opportunity and family health.

Since retiring from medicine, Dr. Stranahan has become immersed in the survival and success of local agriculture and mainstreet businesses. She knows agriculture and small business play a vital role in healthy rural communities. Over the years, Dr. Stranahan has, as a concerned individual, been a core donor for innumerable charities and non-profits in Montana.

But this year Dr. Stranahan is taking her philanthropic commitment to a whole new level in chartering the Montana Good Works Foundation. This new Montana foundation will work to focus Dr. Stranahan's grants and donations on social justice, rural community development, and sustainable business development in Montana.

In one of the Montana Good Works Foundation's first gifts, Dr. Stranahan has shown extraordinary leadership by giving $1.42 million to the Montana Community Development Corporation. This gift kicks off MCDC's campaign to grow its loan fund for Montana businesses to $15 million and it empowers MCDC to expand its business coaching services.

Dr. Stranahan has further committed to help Montana Community Development Corporation recruit more philanthropists to this important effort to build entrepreneurship in Montana.

I commend Dr. Stranahan for her great leadership in rural philanthropy. The Big Sky Institute reports that rural States like Montana are on the short end of a great disparity in foundation grant- making. The Big Sky Institute found that, adjusting for population, foundation grants to rural States are less than a fifth of the national average. After adjusting for population, foundation grants to rural States are less than a tenth of the amount received in the State of New York.

Last May, I spoke to the annual conference of the Council on Foundations in Pittsburgh, PA. I challenged foundations to double their grant-making to rural States within 5 years. And I am working with leaders in the nonprofit and foundations communities to convene a rural philanthropy conference in Missoula this August. I am proud of the progress we are making in rural philanthropy. And I look forward to working together with Montana philanthropists like Dr. Stranahan to keep the ball rolling.

I applaud Dr. Stranahan for the vision and the scope of her philanthropy. In particular, I commend her commitment to building rural entrepreneurs as a core philanthropic strategy. Dr. Stranahan is one of the new Montana leaders who are showing the world that Montana truly deserves its designation as the Treasure State.

I recognize and commend Dr. Mary Stranahan for her substantial efforts on behalf of Montana's communities and Montana's future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Goitein, a detailee from the Department of Justice in Senator Feingold's Judiciary Committee office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the Ensign amendment. Splitting the circuit would have detrimental effects on the West--in particular, in my home State of Montana. Splitting the Ninth Circuit would eliminate uniformity of law in the West. States sharing common concerns such as the environment and Native American rights could end up with different rules of law. This would create confusion and cause serious problems between States.

And splitting the Ninth Circuit would impose huge new costs. A split would require new Federal funds for courthouses and administrative buildings. Existing judicial facilities are just not equipped for a new circuit. The Administrative Office estimates these start-up costs to be $96 million, and then $16 million in annual recurring costs under the proposed split. The judiciary budget is already stretched thin. The creation of a new and costly bureaucracy to administer the new circuit would just add to our growing deficit. And this proposal does not have the support of the people whom it will most directly affect.

Judges on the circuit oppose the split. Members of the State bars affected by the split oppose it. And almost 100 Federal, State, and local organizations oppose splitting the Ninth Circuit. Only 3 of the 26 active judges on the Ninth Circuit favor splitting the circuit. Many State bars oppose this proposal including Alaska, Washington, Nevada, Hawaii, and Arizona. Even the Federal Bar Association and the appellate section of the Oregon bar feel strongly that we should not split the Ninth Circuit. The State Bar of Montana does not support this proposal. The Montana bar unanimously passed a resolution opposing division of the Ninth Circuit.

We ought to be listening to the people on the ground who deal with this issue every day, not creating hardship from our offices in DC. Let's be frank here. The motivation behind splitting the circuit is political. It is an attempt to control the decisions of the judiciary by rearranging the bench. The judiciary is supposed to be an independent branch of government. It must remain so. Splitting the circuit is not the right thing to do for Montana. It is not the right thing to do for the country.

Mr. President, in Shakespeare's time, the poor had little access to medicine. In ``Measure for Measure,'' one of Shakespeare's plays, he wrote:

The miserable have no other medicine, but only hope.

With the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, we sought to give America's seniors, especially America's poorest seniors, something more than only hope. We sought to ensure that seniors had access to the affordable medicine they need.

When we crafted the Medicare drug benefit, we could only imagine how it would work. We really did not know. In some respects, our work was theoretical. We established a market-based approach in which any number of private insurers would compete to offer drug coverage. That was the foundation.

Even with a market-based design, we had tremendous concern that the market would not be able to offer drug coverage. As the former CMS Administrator said at the time:

Private drug plans do not yet exist in nature.

We were starting from scratch.

In an abundance of caution, we went a step further than merely creating a market for drug coverage. We took what I am now convinced was a step too far: We tied the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services with what has come to be known as the ``noninterference clause.'' We eliminated the Government's ability to intervene to get fair drug prices for seniors. Today, we consider a bill to repeal a portion of that noninterference clause created by the Medicare prescription drug program.

What is the noninterference clause? The noninterference clause prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from ``interfering'' with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and drug plan sponsors. Essentially, this provision bans the Secretary from doing anything that would affect the prices Medicare pays for drugs. Another prong of this noninterference clause prohibits the Secretary from creating a single, national formulary and from setting prices under the Medicare drug benefit. The legislation before us today, however, leaves that part alone. Those prohibitions remain.

Now the Medicare drug benefit is in its second year. Our theory that private plans would offer and deliver Medicare drug coverage proved accurate. It is working for millions of Americans. It is giving them more than just hope. But it is not perfect, and in some cases it still may not be giving seniors affordable drugs. We are here today because we need to do all we can to make sure it works well for everyone. Looking at the program today, the noninterference clause is an unnecessary hindrance. It ties the Secretary's hands.

Free markets are usually the best solution. But markets sometimes fail. In this program, American taxpayers are spending more than $50 billion a year to deliver a prescription drug benefit to seniors. We may on occasion need the Secretary to roll up his sleeves and get more involved in the program. We want Secretaries of HHS to be able to use the tools at their disposal. We want them to help shape the drug benefit into a strong and thriving program. It is time to untie the Secretary's hands.

The bill before us today does not change the market-based approach of the drug benefit. It does not change that at all. This bill is not the first step toward Government-run health care, nothing close to it. This bill is not the first step toward a single-payer health care system. No way. Rather, the bill before us today aims simply to improve and strengthen the drug benefit. It is our way of fulfilling our promise to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access to affordable medicines. We should not allow the Government to sit idly by while seniors continue to pay high prices or even go without their medicine. That would be a dereliction of duty. Congress created this benefit to give seniors access to affordable drug coverage. Now we need to make sure the prices seniors pay at the pharmacy are low, too. That is the goal of this legislation.

So let us build on the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Let us seek to give America's seniors something more than only hope. Let us ensure that seniors truly have access to the affordable medicine they need.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.