Floor Statements

Mr. President, I favor repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax often forces ranchers and farmers in my home State of Montana to have to struggle just to pass their land on to their children. But the political games that Congressional leaders played with this bill are not the way to get the job done. I hope that cooler heads can prevail and that we can work together for sensible reform in the future.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Chairman Grassley, Senator Kennedy, and Chairman Enzi for their hard work and cooperation on this bill.

I like the final product. It strikes a balance between getting plans funded and not forcing employers out of the defined benefit pension system. It provides certainty for cash balance plans. It makes certain that workers can diversify their investments out of employer stock. It makes changes that will help workers save for their retirements. And it assures that workers and retirees will receive clear information about the health of their plans and their individual situations.

I don't like for one minute, however, the process that got us here. Chairman Grassley and I worked very closely to include tax extenders on this bill. We had an agreement with the House to do so. We were ready to sign the conference agreement. Instead, we had the rug pulled out from under us. The pension bill now comes to us without the extenders.

There is a reason for the conference process. It was a process that was working. I think that we should have continued down that path.

But as I said, this is a good pension bill of which we can be proud. We need to pass it.

I will not go through all the provisions in the bill. They are too numerous to do that. But there are some points that I want to highlight.

First let me address single-employer pension plan funding. When I spoke last November about the pension bill that was then pending in the Senate, I asked my colleagues to remember that we are here to protect workers' pension benefits. That has been our goal from day one. And that is what this bill does.

The current system is broken. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation--the Federal corporation that guarantees defined benefit pension benefits--has a $23 billion deficit. The existing rules and temporary congressional fixes have created unpredictable funding requirements. As a result, employers are freezing their plans as a preliminary to leaving the defined benefit system altogether. And many view defined benefit plans as an antiquated vehicle for delivering retirement benefits.

How do we fix the system? We would all like to get the plans fully funded. We would all like not to increase funding requirements too much for employers who cannot afford it. We would all like to see defined benefit plans continue. That is especially true for the 44 million Americans now receiving retirement benefits from defined benefit plans or earning benefits under them.

Addressing these goals required a delicate balance. The balance that we struck is one of which I am proud. It reflects difficult compromises by all parties. There is no perfect answer here. But I think that we came as close as we could.

Employers will not be able to make promises that they don't fund. Employers and unions will not be able to negotiate for benefit increases without paying for them. Workers will have to push for better funding if they want to continue to earn benefits.

The medicine may not taste very good. But it is necessary to keep the patient alive.

At the same time, there are some patients that are so sick that they need more than harsh-tasting medicine. They need some understanding and a chance to recover. We are giving that chance to the airlines. Maybe that way we can avoid the harm that will come to the workers and retirees--and the PBGC--if the plans terminate.

Second, let me address cash balance plans. We have been struggling with the difficult problems of a new form of defined benefit plan called a ``cash balance plan'' for many years. Most pension experts recognize the cash balance design and other hybrid plan designs as the future of the defined benefit system. And that future is in limbo until we provide certainty as to the governing rules. Yet there is a real concern about age discrimination and what happens to workers who get caught up in the switch from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan.

This bill once again strikes a balance. It is a balance that is not likely to make anyone completely happy. We have dealt with the law going forward. We intend no inference to what the rules were prior to enactment. We will leave the past to the courts.

But in the future, employers and workers will know the guiding principles. I expect that as a result, we will see new life in the cash balance world. And we also make sure that workers are protected.

Third, let me address diversification. While defined benefit plans are important, many Americans today receive retirement benefits from their defined contribution plans. What a tragedy it was in Enron and other situations when workers had their entire retirement wrapped up in Enron stock. They could not get out even if they wanted to.

The new law will require plans to allow workers to diversify. Workers won't have to. It will be their choice. But they will have that choice.

Fourth, automatic enrollment: I am proud that this bill included a provision that I have been pushing for some time to allow 401(k) plans and 403(b) arrangements to automatically enroll workers unless they opt out. This means that the workers' salaries will be reduced to put savings into the retirement plan unless the worker instructs the employer not to do this withholding. And we let employers automatically increase the amount saved each year unless the worker says no. Many studies have found that this ``opt-out'' approach significantly increases workers'' retirement savings.

Fifth, let me address the saver's credit and permanence of provisions from the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which people call EGTRRA. The bill makes permanent the EGTRRA savings provisions affecting plans and IRAs. I worked very closely with Chairman Grassley to get the savings provisions included in EGTRRA in the first place. And I am very happy that this bill makes them permanent.

Perhaps more importantly, we made the saver's credit permanent. The saver's credit would have expired at the end of 2006. And for the first time, we indexed the saver's credit so that worker eligibility will not shrink over time because of inflation.

Sixth, we include the tax court modernization package. This package has passed Finance Committee three times. It is designed to help bring parity between the tax court and Article III courts. And it will modernize the tax court's pension system. This package is long overdue.

Seventh, we include important incentives for charitable giving. These include measures to promote land conservation. And these include a provision to encourage IRA rollovers to charitable organizations.'

I have been working since 2001 to allow ranchers and farmers to claim a special tax incentive to ensure their valuable production land preserved for generations of Montanans in the future. In fact, my first hearing as chairman of the Finance Committee in 2001 was on tax incentives for land conservation.

There are numerous other provisions in this 900-plus page bill of which we can all be proud. We have taken on a very difficult and complex subject and struck the right balance. I just regret that we could not do it in the proper way and finished the conference. There were important provisions included in the conference bill that are not included in the pension bill before us. We all know what they are and the reasons they are not included. I am sorry that the Senate process has come to such a sad state.

But after nearly 3 years, several hearings, and countless missed deadlines, the Senate is about to pass a monumental pension bill. It will enhance retirement security for millions of Americans.

There are many who deserve thanks for this legislation. I want to thank

Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. They provided excellent leadership and cooperation.

I want to thank their staffs, many of whom spent sleepless nights getting this work done. In particular, I thank Diann Howland, David Thompson, Greg Dean, Portia Wu, Holly Fechner, and Terri Holloway. They played an important role developing the retirement security provisions in this bill.

I also to thank my good friend Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his commitment to the retirement security of Americans. I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, John O'Neill, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Chris Javens, Cathy Barre, Anne Freeman, Elizabeth Goff and Nick Wyatt.

I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service, including Jim Fransen, Mark Mathiesen, Stacey Kern, Mark McGunagle, Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, Nicole Flax, Roger Colinvaux, Ron Schultz and Gordon Clay.

I also thank my staff for their tireless effort and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, Bill Dauster, Jon Selib, Melissa Mueller, Rebecca Baxter, and Ryan Abraham. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Stuart Sirkin, Tiffany Smith, Mary Baker, and Tom Louthan.

I especially want to express my sincere gratitude to Judy Miller. Her extraordinary efforts and contributions on this legislation went over and above the call of duty. I hold her in the highest esteem. And I can't thank her enough for her counsel and professionalism.

Finally, I thank our hardworking law clerks and interns: Christal Edwards, Justin Kraske, Joseph Adams, Tom Duppong, Jonathan Lebe, Robert Little, Chris Polhemus, Diana Ramos, Tara Rose, John Schiltz, Thad Seegmiller, Gwen Stoltz, and Matthew Wergin.

This legislation really was a team effort. And the product will do a lot of good. I am glad that we have finally reached the day where we can look forward to it soon becoming law.

A fair and good explanation of the bill can be found in The Technical Explanation of HR 4 prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Mr. President, today, along with Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, I am introducing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. This bill would help ensure access to quality, affordable health care in rural America. And this bill would improve accuracy, reduce volatility, and ease uncertainty in the way that Medicare pays hospitals.

Medicare pays most hospitals through the inpatient prospective payment system, or IPPS. Under the IPPS, Medicare pays hospitals a standardized amount for each patient discharged. The Government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, adjusts this amount for local wages, with a mechanism known as the area wage index. CMS intends that the area wage index help adjust for the wide variation of prices for labor and supplies across the Nation. After adjusting for wages, CMS then multiplies the standardized amount by the relative weight of the diagnosis--the diagnosis related group or DRG--to determine the total payment to the hospital. CMS further increases payments if the hospital is a teaching hospital, cares for a disproportionate share of low-income patients, or treats an exceptionally costly case.

Rural providers have had concerns about the accuracy of the wage index. Largely in response to these concerns, Congress enacted an important provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, in 2003. For hospitals with wage indexes below 1.0--that is, hospitals where CMS thinks that local wages are below average--section 403 of the MMA reduced the portion of the standardized amount subject to wages to 62 percent, down from about 70 percent. This provision increased payments to hospitals in low-wage areas by an estimated $5.2 billion over 10 years. And this change was an important step toward ensuring access to quality, affordable health care in rural areas.

Nonetheless, significant problems with the wage index still exist. Some of those problems relate to section 304 of the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2001. In that law, Congress required CMS to collect data on hospitals' occupational mix, in order to remove incentives to employ a relatively more expensive workforce.

For instance, a hospital that employs predominantly higher paid registered nurses would typically have higher labor costs than a facility employing mostly lower paid licensed practical nurses. In an effort to remove the influence of these staffing choices on Medicare hospital payments, section 304 required CMS to adjust the wage index for occupational mix. Congress intended through section 304 to bring greater accuracy to the payment system, leading to fairer reimbursement for hospitals. I am concerned that this provision may well have the opposite effect.

CMS collected data for occupational mix adjustment in 2004. But given concerns over the accuracy of the data, in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CMS applied only a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix. CMS proposed the same adjustment--10 percent--for fiscal year 2007.

On April 3, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered CMS to apply 100-percent of the occupational mix adjustment for fiscal year 2007. The court directed CMS to complete data collection and measurement by September 30, 2006, and then apply the adjustment in full.

Mr. President, if CMS proceeds with a 100 percent occupational mix adjustment, hospital payments will be subject to inaccuracy, uncertainty, and volatility. Congress can prevent these outcomes, by passing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act that we introduce today.

This bill would maintain the current 10 percent occupational mix adjustment for the next 2 fiscal years, giving CMS time to collect accurate data. The bill would require CMS to report on its data collection for the occupational mix adjustment by January 1, 2008. Both of these actions will give hospitals more time--and more information-- to better understand the effect of the occupational mix adjustment.

Mr. President, Medicare pays for more than $100 billion of hospital inpatient services every year. This system should be as accurate as possible. This system should not be subject to swings resulting from quickly-collected data, applied at the last minute. I urge my

colleagues to join Chairman Grassley and me in passing this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, today, along with Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, I am introducing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act. This bill would help ensure access to quality, affordable health care in rural America. And this bill would improve accuracy, reduce volatility, and ease uncertainty in the way that Medicare pays hospitals.

Medicare pays most hospitals through the inpatient prospective payment system, or IPPS. Under the IPPS, Medicare pays hospitals a standardized amount for each patient discharged. The Government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, adjusts this amount for local wages, with a mechanism known as the area wage index. CMS intends that the area wage index help adjust for the wide variation of prices for labor and supplies across the Nation. After adjusting for wages, CMS then multiplies the standardized amount by the relative weight of the diagnosis--the diagnosis related group or DRG--to determine the total payment to the hospital. CMS further increases payments if the hospital is a teaching hospital, cares for a disproportionate share of low-income patients, or treats an exceptionally costly case.

Rural providers have had concerns about the accuracy of the wage index. Largely in response to these concerns, Congress enacted an important provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, or MMA, in 2003. For hospitals with wage indexes below 1.0--that is, hospitals where CMS thinks that local wages are below average--section 403 of the MMA reduced the portion of the standardized amount subject to wages to 62 percent, down from about 70 percent. This provision increased payments to hospitals in low-wage areas by an estimated $5.2 billion over 10 years. And this change was an important step toward ensuring access to quality, affordable health care in rural areas.

Nonetheless, significant problems with the wage index still exist. Some of those problems relate to section 304 of the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2001. In that law, Congress required CMS to collect data on hospitals' occupational mix, in order to remove incentives to employ a relatively more expensive workforce.

For instance, a hospital that employs predominantly higher paid registered nurses would typically have higher labor costs than a facility employing mostly lower paid licensed practical nurses. In an effort to remove the influence of these staffing choices on Medicare hospital payments, section 304 required CMS to adjust the wage index for occupational mix. Congress intended through section 304 to bring greater accuracy to the payment system, leading to fairer reimbursement for hospitals. I am concerned that this provision may well have the opposite effect.

CMS collected data for occupational mix adjustment in 2004. But given concerns over the accuracy of the data, in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, CMS applied only a 10-percent adjustment for occupational mix. CMS proposed the same adjustment--10 percent--for fiscal year 2007.

On April 3, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered CMS to apply 100-percent of the occupational mix adjustment for fiscal year 2007. The court directed CMS to complete data collection and measurement by September 30, 2006, and then apply the adjustment in full.

Mr. President, if CMS proceeds with a 100 percent occupational mix adjustment, hospital payments will be subject to inaccuracy, uncertainty, and volatility. Congress can prevent these outcomes, by passing the Wage Index Accuracy Improvement Act that we introduce today.

This bill would maintain the current 10 percent occupational mix adjustment for the next 2 fiscal years, giving CMS time to collect accurate data. The bill would require CMS to report on its data collection for the occupational mix adjustment by January 1, 2008. Both of these actions will give hospitals more time--and more information-- to better understand the effect of the occupational mix adjustment.

Mr. President, Medicare pays for more than $100 billion of hospital inpatient services every year. This system should be as accurate as possible. This system should not be subject to swings resulting from quickly-collected data, applied at the last minute. I urge my

colleagues to join Chairman Grassley and me in passing this important legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Grassley- Baucus amendment to the bill H.R. 5864--The Returned Americans Protection Act of 2006. This bill provides needed resources to the United States Repatriation Program, which is currently assisting U.S. citizens who are returning to United States from Lebanon.

The United States Repatriation Program was established by title XI, section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide temporary assistance to U.S. citizens and their dependents who have been identified by the Department of State as having returned, or been brought from a foreign country to the U.S. because of destitution, illness, war, threat of war, or a similar crisis. The program is currently being used to provide assistance to citizens returning from Lebanon, but estimates indicate that the program could reach its statutory spending cap at any moment. The cap is currently $1 million per fiscal year. We have been asked by HHS to increase the cap for fiscal year 2006 to $6 million.

The Grassley-Baucus amendment lifts the cap for fiscal year 2006 from $1 million to $6 million. The amendment also includes an offset from the President's fiscal year 2006 budget to use the National Directory of New Hires, NDNH, to improve the administration of the Food Stamp Program. Access to the NDNH will help USDA verify wage and employment information on food stamp applications. That proposal was scored by CBO has providing $11 million in savings over 10 years.

We have worked with the Department of Health and Human Services and other Government agencies in creating this legislation. We believe we have a reasonable and fiscally responsible solution to this relatively minor problem. We urge the Senate to adopt our amendment, pass the bill, and send the bill to the House for their immediate consideration.

This bill involves a small and, thankfully, seldom-used Federal program. But as recent news events have made clear, this is a program that can provide much-needed assistance to our constituents during difficult circumstances. We should not allow these

important resources to be needlessly delayed.

Madam President, 3 years ago, Burma's military junta arrested democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and returned her to the house arrest that she has endured with only intermittent periods of release since 1989.

Three years ago, Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and we have renewed the sanctions called for under that legislation every year since then.

That legislation is set to expire this summer, and we are now considering whether to extend its provisions for another 3 years.

Tragically, Burma's human rights record has worsened, rather than improved, in the 3 years since Congress enacted the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

Earlier this year, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi was extended for another year. More than 1,100 political prisoners languish in jail in Burma, prevented from expressing their aspirations for a democratic government.

The military junta ruling Burma still refuses to enter into a dialog with the opposition National League for Democracy. Its brutal treatment of ethnic minorities and advocates of democracy remains unabated. Forced labor is a widespread problem, and labor activists are regularly imprisoned for trying to combat it.

The failure of Burma's dictators to address the HIV/AIDS and avian influenza situation in the country contributes to the horrific situation of the Burmese people.

And the regime's effects are not confined to Burma's borders. Thousands of refugees have fled to Thailand, Malaysia, India, and Bangladesh. Burma is the world's second largest opium producer, supplying 90 percent of the heroin from Southeast Asia. It is also the single largest producer of methamphetamine in the region.

One year ago, nearly to the day, I stood on the Senate floor and questioned whether these economic sanctions were the most appropriate tool for bringing about the kind of change we need to see in Burma.

The arguments against economic sanctions continue to be quite compelling. First of all, they have a very poor record of success. The kinds of governments that merit this sort of treatment are not sensitive to international opprobrium, nor are they swayed by it to make changes. Second, economic sanctions tend to hurt the people that they are intended to help. Ordinary people lose their jobs, while the military and its leaders are left untouched. Third, severing economic ties shuts off an important avenue of dialog that can promote change.

Those who support the sanctions point out, rightly, that Burma's rulers are not willing to engage in dialog, either at home or with its neighbors. It is plain that Burma's military dictators are not interested in being members of the international community. They have rebuffed the United Nations. And they have refused to allow U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to visit Burma since November 2003.

They are equally uninterested in improving the lives of their people, or participating in the global economy. While more and more nations have turned to freer markets to bolster their growth, Burma has actually worked to dismantle fundamental economic institutions like property rights, contract enforcement, sustainable fiscal policies, and a reliable currency.

It is difficult to imagine an environment less conducive to growth and less attractive to foreign investment. Revenues from oil and gas exports flow to the regime. Businesses and farmers are routinely shaken down. And productive assets are concentrated in the hands of the regime's cronies.

In December of last year, America led the effort that produced the U.N. Security Council's first-ever discussion of the human rights abuses in Burma. I welcome the administration's efforts to increase international pressure on the military dictatorship.

But if we are serious about trying to isolate the junta through sanctions, we cannot act alone. The European Union has also imposed sanctions on Burma, but neighboring countries continue to trade with Burma and to direct investment there.

The administration needs to work with other countries, especially the countries in the region Thailand, China, India--that are still economically engaged with the dictatorship to intensify the pressure on the regime.

The countries in the region have the most to lose from the worsening of the situation in Burma. As the oppression and abuse continue, more refugees will flee across the borders. As the junta focuses on enriching itself and ignoring the needs of its people, more drugs will flow across the border, and the risk of diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis, and avian influenzas will increase in the region.

Despite my reservations about the effectiveness of sanctions to effect change, I will support this resolution, extending the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act for a further 3 years.

This extension adds our voice to the voice of the Burmese people, muffled by the oppressive regime, in calling out for democracy and human rights. It is my hope that our action today will increase the awareness of the worsening human rights situation and bolster international support for democracy in Burma.

Mr. President, over 70 years ago one of Montana's most renowned political figures, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, attended a meeting

with President Franklin D. Roosevelt where be proposed building the Fort Peck Dam in Central Montana. Fort Peck would be the largest hydraulic earth-filled dam in the world requiring over 11,000 workers at peak construction. At a pricetag of $75 million, the cost of construction was large even by today's standards. Fifteen minutes after Senator Wheeler's meeting with President Roosevelt had begun, Senator Wheeler walked out with a promise from President Roosevelt to have the Army Corps of Engineers build Fort Peck Dam. Construction began in 1933.

While it has taken this Congress significantly longer than it did Senator Wheeler to advance the water resource needs of the Nation, I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, and Bond--to bring the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 to the floor.

It has been nearly 6 years since the last WRDA bill was signed into law. Protection of public safety, continued growth of the economy, and the restoration of the environment depend on our timely action.

Much has changed since the Corps constructed Fort Peck Dam. Today much of the Corps work in Montana is focused on ecosystem restoration. That is why I included a provision in this bill that will allow the Corps to plan conservation projects on the Yellowstone River that are identified in the course of the Yellowstone River Cumulative Effects Study. A cumulative effects study has been ongoing along the Yellowstone River for several years, authorized by WRDA 1999. This study has been very successful, and has involved close collaboration with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and local conservation districts, among many others. The provision included in the bill today would provide the Corps with the authority to move forward with planning, design and construction of ecosystem restoration projects along the Yellowstone as they are identified by the cumulative effects study. It is so important. All these factors work together. It provides for public participation in the selection of projects, and consultation with the State of Montana, the Yellowstone Conservation District Council, and others.

The Yellowstone is the longest free flowing river in the county. Much of southern and eastern Montana depends on the health of the Yellowstone River. It irrigates fields, provides world-class fishing, sustains the tourism sector, and supplies clean drinking water. It is a source of great pride and economic strength for all Montana. This provision will protect the Yellowstone and Montana's recreational heritage for generations to come.

While the Corps' mission has evolved to include ecosystem restoration, part of the Corps' central mission is to develop our water resources to maintain our economic competitiveness. Economic development and ecosystem restoration used to be thought of as mutually exclusive. No more. This view is needlessly divisive. This bill includes a provision that has brought together both irrigators and environmentalists. The Intake project on the Yellowstone River will authorize the Corps to work with the Bureau of Reclamation in the design and construction of a dam and diversion works that will help both farmers and endangered fish. Rebuilding the dam at Intake will guarantee farmers water for their crops and allow the endangered sturgeon to pass through the dam, opening 238 miles of river habitat for the endangered fish.

This bill also includes urgently needed hurricane protection and coastal restoration projects for the State of Louisiana. Indeed, this bill authorizes the Corps in consultation with the Governor of Louisiana to create a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan for Louisiana to rehabilitate coastal barrier islands and wetlands that serve as natural hurricane barriers.

Unfortunately, some things at the Corps have not changed. In 1938 the Fort Peck Dam tragically failed. Thirty-four workers were swept away in a landslide. Eight lost their lives. The landslide was the result of inaccurate soils and foundation analysis. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.

Sixty-seven years later as Hurricane Katrina bared down on the city of New Orleans, floodwalls around New Orleans failed because of faulty soils analysis. What makes this event even more tragic is that an internal Corps study predicted exactly how the floodwalls would fail, and it went unread. The underlying bill does not go far enough to ensure that the Corps learns from the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Corps needs a robust program of independent peer review and project prioritization. The Corps currently has a $58 billion project backlog and a $2 billion a year project budget. At that pace it would take the Corps roughly 30 years just to work through the backlog of projects. With limited Federal resources, it is important that the Corps separate the wheat from the chaff.

In fact I would like to see the prioritization framework extended to cover not only construction projects but ongoing operational activities of the Corps as well. Recreation on the Missouri River generates nearly $85 million a year, while the barge industry provides only $9 million a year. Despite this disparity, the Corps continues to maintain at least a 6-month navigation season on the Missouri unless total water system storage on the Missouri drops below 31 million acre feet. That is dryer than a dust bowl drought. It makes no sense to waste precious taxpayer and water resources to maintain a navigation season on the Missouri in drought years. That is why I was pleased to work with Senators Feingold and McCain to include a provision in their project prioritization amendment that directs the Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee to recommend to Congress a process for prioritizing ongoing operational activities of the Corps.

I am proud of the work my colleagues and I have done on this bill. It's been nearly 6 years in the making, but it has a solid base. This bill keeps our economy competitive. It restores fisheries along the Yellowstone River so our kids can enjoy the great outdoors. It protects the gulf coast from the ravages of hurricanes. But it can do more. With the right amendments, it can reform the way the Corps does business to rebuild the floodwalls of New Orleans and the public's trust in the Corps.

I very much hope this amendment succeeds.

I agree with my fellow bill managers.

Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to address an area that needs more attention, the northern border. We have 5,526 miles of border between the United States and Canada. That is about double the length of our southern border with Mexico. Along that border, about 560 miles of it is in the State of Montana. The terrain is remote in many cases. It is mountainous. Passage is somewhat difficult in some areas. In others it is easy; it is wide open.

This amendment will help our Border Patrol cover this vast area by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program using unmanned aerial vehicles along that border.

In addition to personnel training, we must also employ the latest technologies. The border patrol has already

conducted successful tests using UAVs along the southwestern border in Arizona for aliens and detection of those attempting to enter our country illegally. It requires some of the UAVs already provided for in this bill be used to run a pilot program on the northern border similar to that conducted on the southern border.

We do not want to compete with our friends in the Southern States, but we want to make it clear that the northern border also needs increased attention. As you can imagine, as the southern border of the United States is tightened, our northern border, which used to be America's back door, is quickly becoming a front door.

Customs and Border Patrol report that their No. 1 concern on the southern border is illegal immigration. What is the No. 1 concern on the northern border? Terrorism. Border gangs are going international and admit having ties to al-Qaida and smuggling al-Qaida members into the United States.

In Montana, markings from these gangs have been found in the correctional systems, within the walls of our jails, in our detention facilities.

Surveillance of our ports is happening daily by nefarious people. It appears that our procedures for checking out vehicles both leaving and entering our country are being looked at by criminals, and it has been reported that these ``dry runs'' are being conducted near Glacier National Park. All of these activities are made easy due to the wide open space and insufficient numbers of law enforcement personnel along our northern border.

The ability of our Border Patrol to successfully carry out their daily duties is of critical importance, obviously, to the safety of all Americans. This amendment will give us the tools we need to protect our borders. UAVs are a safe alternative to placing civilians in harm's way, and by introducing a pilot program that helps us patrol our northern border, we are getting on the right track to fighting the war on terrorism and keeping our home front safe.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Cantwell and Murray as cosponsors to the amendment.

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

What is the regular order, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, the modification to the amendment I offered is including the phrase, ``working expeditiously with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''

The purpose is to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts in operating the pilot program along the northern border is one that can work with the FAA because the FAA will probably have to give clearance for air traffic taking off. In addition, the FAA will need to, it is my understanding, offer a waiver for these types of aircraft as they have at the southern border. It is my hope, in working with Senator Burns, that this will clear up potential problems that may arise. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I have already spoken about this and why I think it is important. The efforts on the southern border are to combat illegal immigration, and on the northern border they are more to combat terrorism. There are many more reports of potential terrorist casing and transporting of people into the United States from the northern border. It is becoming quite alarming.

It is our hope that this will help control the northern border and help with the additional personnel really needed on the northern border. We don't have that personnel. I think this will help make our country more secure. I thank my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, for making this suggestion. This is a good suggestion. It will strengthen this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.

I ask uanimous consent that Senators Craig and Coleman also be cosponsors of this amendment.

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

I rise today to recognize my friend and fellow Montanan, Nikki Kimball. Starting in the early morning hours on June 24, for 19 hours, 26 minutes, and 50 seconds, Nikki put her body through one of the most grueling endurance races in the world.

The Western States Endurance Run is a 100-mile trek through the picturesque mountains of northern California.

Since the 1970s, runners from six continents have traveled to Squaw Valley to push their bodies to the limit.

Following the Western States Trail, once used by the gold and silver miners, the runners traverse some of the most diverse terrain the mountains have to offer.

However, this run is more than just a physical challenge, it is a battle of wills between the determined runners and Mother Nature. When I talked to Nikki, the first thing that she mentioned was the excruciating heat.

The searing heat not only resulted in intense dehydration, it also caused her shoe leather to constrict on her feet resulting in horrendous blisters. Yet, she forged on.

This race became a battle against oneself. As a fellow distance runner, I know the agony that comes with these types of races. Your legs are cramping, your lungs are on fire, and everything in you says stop, sit down, quit. Yet, in the back of your mind there is the little , voice saying keep going, one more mile, you can make it. Nikki listened to that voice, and turned in an epic performance.

Though challenged by hundreds of runners, including many professionals, Nikki coupled her elite physical prowess with an iron will, and won the female division, and placed second overall.

Her performance at Western States is just another addition to her phenomenal athletic resume.

Nikki's running has taken her all over the world and awarded her many honors. She has been selected as the UltraRunning Magazine's North American Runner of the Year, represented the United States on the 100K World Cup team, and has also won the U.S. national snowshoeing championship.

Currently, Nikki is training for the White River 50 mile race in Washington, which is a national championship event.

Yet, Nikki is defined by more than just her running. For all the effort she puts into sports, she puts just as much time into helping the Gallatin and Park County communities as a physical therapist.

Nikki has used her intimate knowledge of athletics to provide accurate insight into many ailments that hinder the citizens of the Gallatin Valley, as well as Paradise Valley, I might add, and all over Montana.

Nikki is an inspiration to all of us. She represents the dedication, iron will, and determination that has come

to define our great State of Montana. When you talk with Nikki, you see the spirit and energy in her and also the determination and the will. She is a wonderful person. I am so honored she has graced our State with this win.

Mr. President, is there any remaining time in morning business?

I will let that time expire.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in 1833, a merchant named Edmund Roberts piloted the U.S. warship Peacock to the port of Muscat, the capital of today's Oman. Roberts bore a letter from President Andrew Jackson to the Sultan Said. Three days later, Roberts and the Sultan signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce. This was the first treaty between America and Oman, 1833. That treaty with Oman was part of a bigger picture, of course. That bigger picture included Siam, today's Thailand, and Cochin China, today's Vietnam. Edmund Roberts also traveled to those countries to initiate broader commercial ties.

Today we are considering implementing legislation for another treaty with Oman, a free-trade agreement. Today I ask again, what is the bigger picture? From where I stand, the bigger picture is a grim one. It is a picture colored by resentment, frustration, and broken promises.

This agreement, as others in the past, will be overshadowed by the unfair process by which the agreement was considered. The substance of the Oman agreement, like others, is largely good. The Omanis have made real progress in liberalizing their economy, ensuring their markets are open and fair, and improving their labor laws to meet internationally recognized norms. Yet the memories of this agreement that will linger will not be tariffs, labor laws, or intellectual property rights protection. Regrettably, what will linger will be a feeling that these trade agreements were pushed through Congress without appropriate consultation. I don't say that lightly, and I don't say that for partisan purpose because I, frankly, don't regard myself as a partisan; rather, someone who is trying to get the job done, working the Senate's business for the good of all Americans.

The Senate considers trade agreements under what is called the fast- track process. Congress agreed to this fast-track process in exchange for the assurance that the Finance and Ways and Means Committees would have an opportunity to influence these trade bills in what is called a mock markup. In these mock markups, the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee can offer amendments to the bills. Under a fast- track process, that is the last time anyone in Congress gets a chance to change the bills.

During the mock markup of the Oman agreement--we call them mock markups because they are not traditional markups in which members of the committee can offer amendments which are then passed. Rather, the amendments that are offered and passed are really not part of legislation. Again, they are indications of what should be in the trade agreement, indications to the administration that when it sends up a trade agreement, it would be wise to include these amendments which members believe should be included.

During the mock markup of the Oman agreement, the Finance Committee voted 18 to 0 to approve an amendment offered by Senator Conrad. The committee later approved the amended language unanimously.

But rather than consider these unanimous actions by the committee, this administration simply stripped the amendment from the implementing legislation that is before us today. There was no consultation. There was no mock conference to fairly consider all views.

This kind of process cannot continue. The sad truth is that at the end of the day, it won't. If the administration continues to disrespect the constitutional authority Congress exercises over international trade, there won't be any fast-track process at all. Once trade promotion authority expires mid-next year, it simply won't be renewed. That is not the result I want, but that is where we are headed. I have been warning for years that the process failures threaten to undermine support for the fast-track procedures that allow us to negotiate free- trade agreements, and that is exactly where we are today. Good trade agreements will not receive the support they might because of a widespread failure in the Congress and the administration to listen to the concerns of Congress. And the chance of renewing trade promotion authority when it expires mid-next year is a long shot at best.

As I said during the markup in the Finance Committee yesterday, this disrespect for congressional power and prerogatives--after all, it is the Congress under the Constitution which sets trade policy--is not confined just to trade agreements. It runs to other matters as well, an accumulation of matters. It runs to other pressing issues of national concern.

The administration dismisses congressional inquiries as unnecessary or harmful--legitimate inquiries--and the administration issues Presidential signing statements indicating the administration's intent to ignore whatever provisions of the law it chooses. I believe the Senate has not been sufficiently aggressive in asserting its authority as a coequal branch of Government. I commend Senator Specter for holding a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on Presidential signing statements. As an institutional matter, and for the good of the country, the Congress must act as a check on the power of the executive branch. Our Founding Fathers set the Constitution up that way. We were set up for one to check the other, not for one to run roughshod over the other, which is beginning to happen.

After much consideration and deliberation, I have decided to support this Oman Free Trade Agreement. It was not an easy decision, but I will do so because I believe that Oman and the Omani people should not be punished by the unfair process that tarnishes an otherwise good agreement.

Let me assure you that I will not forget these shortcomings and process failures after this vote. Let me assure you as well that the effects of these shortcomings and failures will continue to be felt when we consider further trade agreements and when we consider trade promotion authority next year.

The administration must understand that its action on this agreement will have effects far beyond and long after this agreement. I would like to work with the administration to repair the damage done. It will be a difficult job, but for the sake of the Senate and the Nation's economic well-being, we must begin that work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Finance Committee fellows and interns be allowed the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the Oman Free Trade Agreement: Janis Lazda, Chris Polhemus, J.J. Adams, Gwen Stoltz, Tom Duppong, and Robert Little.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Chairman Chuck Grassley, for the way in which he has moved this nomination. It is the right thing to do. I commend him for it.

Mr. President, I also support Hank Paulson, this administration's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury.

Throughout its history, the Department of the Treasury has required enormous innovation, vision, and perseverance. Our Nation's first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, laid the foundation principles of America's public economy, its credit, its industrial development, and commercial activity.

In 1790, Hamilton presented to Congress his plan for public credit, assuming the States' war debts, implementing import duties and excise taxes to repay these debts, and establishing a national bank. The next year, he laid out a plan for an American manufacturing economy, so far ahead of its time that it resonated well into the 20th century.

Henry Morgenthau Jr. steered the Treasury for over a decade in peace and in wartime. He defended the dollar against speculation through the 1930s, financed the war effort with war bonds, and ushered in a new system of international financial stability after the Second World War.

Secretary James Baker embraced new challenges, including the Latin American banking crisis and the Plaza Accords.

The Asian financial turmoil of the 1990s met the able and wise leadership of Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. They steered the world economy through crises. And they managed our economy's remarkable growth and return to fiscal discipline.

Today, leadership and vision are as imperative as during our Nation's founding and in the two centuries since. The challenges are different. The world economy is more complex. China and India are economic powers on the rise. Speculative investments have grown. Twelve European nations are bound by a common currency. Financial markets are deeper, more liquid, and more integrated than ever before. But global economic growth and international trade are fundamentally out of balance.

Faced with these challenges, I welcome this administration's nomination of Henry Paulson to become Secretary of the Treasury. I have known Hank for many years. I believe that he is an outstanding choice for this demanding position. Hank has demonstrated his knowledge of financial markets and helped guide them through three decades of transformation. He rose to the helm of Goldman Sachs with our former colleague Governor Jon Corzine, and as sole CEO, presided over some of the most successful years of that company.

Hank is broadly respected by his colleagues. He has earned a reputation as a man of boundless energy and a relentless work ethic. Hank proved himself an innovative and prescient thinker, able to consider economic and financial challenges before they are upon

us. Today he has nobly answered the call to public service. And he will bring much-needed credibility to our economic message to hard-working Americans, and to the world.

Hank Paulson understands that our economy's strength is rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and the competitive zeal of the American people. He understands just as well that our strength is not a given. That we cannot take our economic preeminence for granted. In the Rose Garden last week, he rightly declared that ``We must take steps to maintain our competitive edge in the world.''

I welcome Hank's determination to take steps to boost our economic competitiveness. I am convinced that economic competitiveness is one of the greatest challenges facing this administration, this Congress, and our Nation.

The competitiveness challenge comes from a rising China. China has tripled its share of global trade in 4 years. China has become the world's top information technology exporter. And China has drawn much of the world's investment.

The challenge comes from India. India's IT sector has grown 50 percent a year since 1993. India's universities are top-notch. And India's research capabilities attract billions of dollars in investment.

The challenge comes from countless smaller economic dynamos in Asia and Europe. These emerging markets have transformed their economies to embrace globalization.

Yet our competitiveness challenge also comes from within. America too often looks back at what we have achieved. Rather, we should prepare for tomorrow's challenge.

Our broadband infrastructure ranks 16th in the world. Our research and development spending ranks behind Sweden, Finland, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. Three out of 10 Americans do not graduate high school. One-quarter of Americans read below basic levels. And our national savings are negative.

These challenges are at our doorstep. We must act. That is why I urge Treasury Secretary Paulson, once confirmed, to lead this administration's engagement with Congress on economic competitiveness. As I have said in several dozen statements on competitiveness over the past months, we can wait no longer to implement a real competitiveness agenda. We in Congress are ready.

I have spent much of the past year developing a comprehensive economic competitiveness agenda. This agenda focuses on education as the foundation of a successful economy.

In the coming weeks I will introduce legislation that would provide scholarships and create tax incentives for early education, science, math, and engineering teachers. It would provide matching funds to offer universal early education, lower barriers to higher education, and double the number of advanced placement courses in our high schools. My education competitiveness legislation would support afterschool and mentoring programs. It would restore our commitment to Native American education. It would direct grants to outstanding young scientists. And it would encourage companies to get involved in making our schools the world's finest.

Upon this foundation of education must stand strong pillars of a competitive economy. One such pillar is energy, which fuels a successful economy. My energy competitiveness legislation would look to the future. It would create the new Advanced Research Projects Agency-- Energy to conduct transformative research and create alternative energy solutions. While this research would look for tomorrow's energy alternative, my legislation would also encourage today's alternative energies, like coal gasification technology, wind, and other alternative fuels.

A second pillar of my agenda is the Research Competitiveness Act, which boosts what America does best--innovate. My legislation would simplify and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit for innovators looking for tomorrow's next big thing. My legislation would provide access to start-up capital for small, research-intensive businesses. And my legislation would encourage support of basic university research.

The trade competitiveness initiative is the third pillar of my agenda. Trade is vital to American ranchers, farmers, and businessmen. But they must have a level global playing field.

Legislation I have introduced would create a Senate-confirmed trade enforcement official who would be dedicated to guaranteeing that our trading partners play by the rules. It would also give the Treasury Department the tools to keep countries from unfairly manipulating their currencies to keep their exports cheap.

A fourth pillar of my agenda is the Savings Competitiveness Act. It would underscore savings as critical to households and vital to a healthy economy. It would make the Saver's Credit into a refundable matching credit. It would make enrollment in 401(k) plans automatic. It would offer savings plans for small business employees. And it would create Young Saver's Accounts for parents' contributions to their children's savings.

Friends warned Alexander Hamilton against accepting a position as Treasury Secretary. They said the position was too difficult, too controversial. He replied simply: It is the situation in which I can do the most good.

I believe Hank Paulson can also do much good. I hope my colleagues will join me in welcoming this nomination. I hope we can work together to implement a comprehensive agenda to improve America's economic competitiveness.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Book of Proverbs says: ``The silver- haired head is a crown of glory.''

Today, the crown of glory rests upon the silver-haired head of our dear friend and colleague, Robert C. Byrd. For yesterday, he became the longest-serving Senator in the history of the Senate.

Senator Byrd has served in the Senate since January 3, 1959. That is longer than there have been 50 States in the Union. That was before Charles de Gaulle was President of France. That was before NASA had astronauts.

Senator Byrd has served as Senator during the terms of 10 Presidents, 9 majority leaders, and 8 Speakers of the House of Representatives.

For 12 years, Senator Byrd served as the leader of Senate Democrats. He served as majority leader, minority leader, and then majority leader again.

Senator Byrd has served as the Senate's historian, elder statesman, and conscience.

Senator Byrd has zealously defended the power of the purse. Senator Byrd has zealously defended the Senate. And Senator Byrd has zealously defended the Constitution of the United States.

But notwithstanding his having held the high rank of Senator for longer than any human being, Senator Byrd has never forgotten whence he came.

Senator Robert C. Byrd grew up in the bituminous coalfields of West Virginia, graduated from high school class in the depths of the Great Depression, and worked pumping gas, selling

produce, cutting meat, and welding ships. Even though Senator Byrd reached the zenith of power, Senator Byrd has always remained a man of the people.

Senator Robert C. Byrd is an assiduous pursuer of knowledge, a tenacious friend, and a man of deep, abiding faith.

Now Senator Byrd surpasses in length of service the likes of Strom Thurmond, Carl Hayden, John Stennis, Russell Long, and Richard Russell. And now Senator Byrd stands in quality of service with the likes of Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Robert La Follette, and Robert Wagner.

I thank almighty God that for more than 47 years, Americans have been able to call him ``Senator.'' I thank God that for more than 27 of those years, I have been blessed to serve here with him. And I thank God that for more than 27 years, I have been blessed to call him ``friend.''