Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help families bear the dramatic increase in cost for home heating bills this winter.

The bill, the Household Energy and Taxpayer Assistance Act of 2005, appropriates enough money to fully fund the Low Income Energy Assistance Program at its authorized level and provides for a tax credit up to $300 per family to offset home heating bills.

I cannot overstate the urgency of this legislation. This week, natural gas prices hit record highs. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, January futures rose to $15.78 per million BTUs. Prices have more than doubled since last year.

What does that mean for the consumer?

The Energy Information Administration predicts that the average household heating with natural gas his winter will pay $281 more for fuel this winter than they did last winter. That is a 38 percent increase. Households using home heating oil can expect to pay $255 more, and propane users could see a $167 increase.

Those heating with electricity will likely see a $46 increase in the cost to heat a home.

The bill that I am proposing includes two proposals that Congress should enact immediately to mitigate these price spikes for households.

First and foremost, my legislation fully funds the Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Despite projections for astronomical energy costs, the conference agreement for the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill funds this essential home heating program at less than 50 percent of its authorized level.

And today the Senate will be considering that conference report. The current funding level for LIHEAP is unacceptable. As energy prices continue to skyrocket, we should not be shortchanging this vital program.

In recent years, a growing need for help with home heating bills has consistently outstripped available funding, which has remained flat.

That is why Congress responded by increasing the authorization for the program to $5.1 billion in the recently enacted energy bill. But Congress hasn't appropriated anywhere near as much for this program as it could.

Current appropriations legislation provides only about $2.2 billion in 2006.

My bill would appropriate an additional $2.9 billion for the LIHEAP program. Funding for heating assistance in my home State of Montana would be at least $35 million, about $20 million more than last year.

Montanans and other hard-working families should not have to choose between their home energy bills and affording other basic necessities.

Energy is a basic need, and without LIHEAP assistance, many Montanans wouldn't be able to heat their homes. That's why I'm working to help ease the burden of high heating costs.

In addition, this bill establishes a temporary tax credit to help all taxpayers to defray a portion of their heating bills this winter. That means families can add up their home energy bills, and when tax time comes around they can get 20 percent of that expense back, for heating fuel or utility costs. That credit will provide as much as $200 for an individual or $300 for a family.

The credit is also refundable. Low-income Americans who don't owe any Federal income taxes would still get that rebate against their heating bills.

Americans can't wait until spring for this assistance.

In its current edition, U.S. News & World Report introduces us to Mervalene Eastman, an unemployed woman on the Crow Indian Reservation. Month-to-month, $100 jumps in her heating bills last year put her behind in her bills. Medical problems forced her to leave her job as an emergency dispatcher, and then she lost natural gas service.

Things are so tough she sometimes needed to use her electric oven for heat, especially on cold nights. I am deeply troubled by the thought that more Americans will go without heat this winter. I am concerned families will face a choice between food on their table or heat during the night. They should not have to make that decision. We should pass this legislation and give millions of families an early present this holiday.

Now is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to join me helping to provide this much needed relief.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help families bear the dramatic increase in cost for home heating bills this winter.

The bill, the Household Energy and Taxpayer Assistance Act of 2005, appropriates enough money to fully fund the Low Income Energy Assistance Program at its authorized level and provides for a tax credit up to $300 per family to offset home heating bills.

I cannot overstate the urgency of this legislation. This week, natural gas prices hit record highs. On the New York Mercantile Exchange, January futures rose to $15.78 per million BTUs. Prices have more than doubled since last year.

What does that mean for the consumer?

The Energy Information Administration predicts that the average household heating with natural gas his winter will pay $281 more for fuel this winter than they did last winter. That is a 38 percent increase. Households using home heating oil can expect to pay $255 more, and propane users could see a $167 increase.

Those heating with electricity will likely see a $46 increase in the cost to heat a home.

The bill that I am proposing includes two proposals that Congress should enact immediately to mitigate these price spikes for households.

First and foremost, my legislation fully funds the Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Despite projections for astronomical energy costs, the conference agreement for the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill funds this essential home heating program at less than 50 percent of its authorized level.

And today the Senate will be considering that conference report. The current funding level for LIHEAP is unacceptable. As energy prices continue to skyrocket, we should not be shortchanging this vital program.

In recent years, a growing need for help with home heating bills has consistently outstripped available funding, which has remained flat.

That is why Congress responded by increasing the authorization for the program to $5.1 billion in the recently enacted energy bill. But Congress hasn't appropriated anywhere near as much for this program as it could.

Current appropriations legislation provides only about $2.2 billion in 2006.

My bill would appropriate an additional $2.9 billion for the LIHEAP program. Funding for heating assistance in my home State of Montana would be at least $35 million, about $20 million more than last year.

Montanans and other hard-working families should not have to choose between their home energy bills and affording other basic necessities.

Energy is a basic need, and without LIHEAP assistance, many Montanans wouldn't be able to heat their homes. That's why I'm working to help ease the burden of high heating costs.

In addition, this bill establishes a temporary tax credit to help all taxpayers to defray a portion of their heating bills this winter. That means families can add up their home energy bills, and when tax time comes around they can get 20 percent of that expense back, for heating fuel or utility costs. That credit will provide as much as $200 for an individual or $300 for a family.

The credit is also refundable. Low-income Americans who don't owe any Federal income taxes would still get that rebate against their heating bills.

Americans can't wait until spring for this assistance.

In its current edition, U.S. News & World Report introduces us to Mervalene Eastman, an unemployed woman on the Crow Indian Reservation. Month-to-month, $100 jumps in her heating bills last year put her behind in her bills. Medical problems forced her to leave her job as an emergency dispatcher, and then she lost natural gas service.

Things are so tough she sometimes needed to use her electric oven for heat, especially on cold nights. I am deeply troubled by the thought that more Americans will go without heat this winter. I am concerned families will face a choice between food on their table or heat during the night. They should not have to make that decision. We should pass this legislation and give millions of families an early present this holiday.

Now is the time to act, and I urge my colleagues to join me helping to provide this much needed relief.

Madam President, I call up a motion to instruct which is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Madam President, this motion instructs the Senate conferees on the spending reconciliation bill not to bring back a conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries.

Last month, the House passed a spending reconciliation bill that would increase health costs and cut benefits for millions of seniors and lower-income Americans who depend on Medicaid.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of the Medicaid savings in the House bill came

from the these cuts. The bill would increase costs for 17 million people, cut benefits for 5 million people, and force tens of thousands off of Medicaid.

We know the damage that increasing health costs can cause. We have seen it happen. Oregon imposed just a nominal premium for some on Medicaid--from $6 to $20 a month. Within 10 months, nearly half of the people forced to pay had been dropped from coverage. Three-quarters of those who were dropped became uninsured.

These changes impose a tax on our poorest citizens.

And these changes also burden doctors, hospitals, and clinics that treat Medicaid patients. States will deduct the fees regardless of whether providers ever get paid. Healthcare providers will pass these uncompensated costs along through higher rates for all patients in the private market.

Many poor people will pay more, but get less. The House bill allows States to cut Medicaid benefits. Although the bill would protect the poorest children, millions of children would no longer get the medical care that they need. People with disabilities and chronic conditions would also be at risk.

Some say we need to look at Medicaid's rising costs, and I agree. We need to get a handle on spending and make this program sustainable. But shifting costs and cutting benefits for our poorest and least able to pay is not the smart way to do it.

This motion instructs Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill to reject the House changes to Medicaid that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries or undermine Medicaid's guarantee. The Senate must take a stand in support of the neediest among us.

Let us ensure that we do no harm to the vulnerable people whom Medicaid serves.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, what is the regular order?

Madam President, the Senate is not in order.

Madam President, this motion instructs the Senate conferees on the pending reconciliation bill not to bring back a conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries. In fact, these changes amount to a tax on our poorest citizens. They also burden doctors, hospitals, other providers who will pass on the costs to them. More poor people will pay more, but they will get less. It does not make sense. We are cutting Medicaid to take it out of the hide of the poorest people of our country, and that is Medicaid recipients.

May I also say I am supported by a strong letter from a number of Senators on the other side of the aisle. This letter asks the same; that we do not adopt these harsh House Medicaid cuts. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

The Senate is not in order.

Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will be sending a motion to instruct to the desk. I will be doing that at a later time. In the meantime, I rise to speak on that motion.

The motion instructs the Senate conferees on the spending reconciliation bill not to bring back a conference report that hurts Medicaid beneficiaries. This is the item about which the Senator from New Mexico just spoke.

Last month, the House passed such a bill, one that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries. The House passed a bill that would cut health care for millions of seniors and lower income Americans who depend on Medicaid.

I believe the Senate should reject these harmful cuts. In early November, the Senate voted by a thin margin to cut Medicaid, our Nation's safety net health program for low-income Americans. Many of us at that time objected to those cuts. That day, the Senate bill planted a seed of opportunity to make even more harmful cuts, hurting millions of low-income children, seniors, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate reconciliation bill bore bitter fruit. Why? Because the Medicaid cuts in the House bill turned out to be substantial and, in fact, will hurt millions of the poorest and neediest among us.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the Medicaid savings in the House bill come from targeting our poorest citizens. CBO says three-quarters of the House bill's Medicaid savings come from provisions that increase costs, cut benefits, or impair access to services for low-income individuals. These cuts will affect millions of people. The CBO estimates that about 17 million Medicaid enrollees will pay more under the House bill, and half of those paying more will be children.

Who will these cuts affect? Medicaid now serves more than 50 million low-income Americans. A quarter are children. A quarter are seniors and disabled. The rest are pregnant women, low-income parents, and individuals with serious medical needs.

Many believe that all low-income Americans are eligible for Medicaid. That is not the case. Often only the very poor qualify. On average, a nonworking parent making about $150 per week for a family of three makes too much for Medicaid. Again, a nonworking parent of a family of three making about $150 a week makes too much for Medicaid. That is less than one-half the Federal poverty level.

Eligibility levels for working parents are also low. On average, a working parent with a family of three earning more than $5.50 an hour also makes too much to qualify for Medicaid. So we are talking about the very poor.

Under the House bill, these needy individuals will pay more for less. CBO estimates that about 80 percent of the savings from increasing cost sharing would come from decreased use of health care services. Some may say that increasing cost sharing will curb waste, abuse. I am not saying we cannot or should not look at reducing unnecessary treatments under Medicaid. Far from it. But increasing cost sharing is not the right way to do it.

Increasing costs deters patients from seeking health care services, both good and bad services. If we really want to control overuse of services, we should be investing in care management strategies for expensive chronic diseases such as diabetes. These strategies have proven to lower cost while increasing the quality of care.

Increasing enrollee cost sharing can also have unintended systemwide effects. Many States have already said they will deduct the new copayment fees from provider rates regardless of whether providers collect the fees. The result puts the new burden on doctors and clinics and hospitals serving our health safety net. Many of these providers will be forced to make up uncompensated care costs by increasing private market rates, which will drive up health care costs for all of us, leading to more uninsured and an even greater need for Medicaid.

Even more troubling, the House bill's premium increases will result in tens of thousands of individuals losing Medicaid coverage. According to CBO, about a quarter of the savings from the premium increases are for individuals losing coverage. We don't need to rely on CBO to know that this will actually happen. Why? Because in the State of Oregon, this was tried, and the results were quite clear and disturbing. That State began to enforce nominal monthly premiums for higher income Medicaid beneficiaries. What happened? Oregon saw its enrollment drop by nearly one-half in 10 months. Nearly 50,000 individuals lost coverage.

This increased cost sharing amounts to a tax on poor families now in Medicaid. For a family of three with income at 135 percent of poverty, annual cost sharing would be as high as $1,086 per year or, stated another way, about 60 percent of their annual Federal tax liability.

Let me say that again. For a family of three, with income at 135 percent of poverty, annual cost-sharing could be as high as over $1,000, which amounts to less than 60 percent of their annual Federal tax liability. In effect, it is a tax--a big tax, about 60 percent of their Federal tax. Add them together and it is about 160 percent of tax they are paying.

Many of these poor individuals would also be forced to pay more to get less. How? Because the House allows States to cut Medicaid benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5 million enrollees would see their benefits cut over the next 10 years. Half of those affected would be children. Higher income children would no longer have guaranteed access to medically necessary care under Medicaid.

It is also unclear whether individuals with disabilities and chronic conditions would be protected. This could undermine access to more expensive treatments and services for those individuals who turn to Medicaid because the private market will not cover them.

Shifting costs and cutting benefits for our poorest and least able to pay is not the smart way to preserve our Nation's safety net for future generations.

In the Finance Committee, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to support the Senate bill because it didn't include changes that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries. My friend and colleague, Finance Chairman Grassley, praised the bill, saying it ``protects Medicaid benefits for the most vulnerable in our society.''

The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, said that ``the reconciliation package we are considering today is not only fiscally responsible, but also morally defensible. This is a bill that protects the less fortunate among us. It takes pains to preserve the vital safety net programs that millions of Americans rely on.''

And the junior Senator from Pennsylvania said during the committee markup:

Let us set the record straight. We are not cutting health

care services to the beneficiary.

So today I will offer this motion to set the record straight on Medicaid cuts. This motion instructs Senate conferees on the reconciliation bill to reject changes to Medicaid that would hurt Medicaid beneficiaries or undermine Medicaid's guarantee. Given the threat of the cuts passed in the House, the Senate must take a stand in support of the neediest among us.

Let us ensure that we keep the record straight on Medicaid. Let us ensure that we do no harm to the vulnerable individuals whom Medicare serves. Let us pass this motion.

Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will make the motion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Libby, MT, is a special place. Libby is a city of more than 2,600 people in Lincoln County, in the northwest corner of Montana. It rests in a valley high in the Rocky Mountains, on the green Kootenai River between the Cabinet and Percell Mountains.

Libby is not a rich city. In 2000, the median family income in Libby was just under $30,000. That compares with just over $40,000 in all of Montana, and just over $50,000 in all of America.

Across the river, and 9 miles northeast of the town, rises a mountain that they call Zonolite Mountain. Until 1990, the W.R. Grace Company used to mine vermiculite there in the mountain.

Vermiculite is shiny mineral. Heat it, and it pops like popcorn. People used to pop vermiculite to make building insulation. They called the popped vermiculite ``Zonolite.''

The layers of rock where people found the vermiculite contained harmful asbestos. And the vermiculite outside Libby is laced with a especially dangerous type of asbestos, called tremolite.

Tremolite is the most toxic form of asbestos. Termolite has long fibers that are barbed like fishhooks. These fibers work their way into soft lung tissue. These fibers do not come out.

Until the mid-1970s, W.R. Grace processed the vermiculite mined in Libby in a nearby mill. The mill was so dusty that workers often could not see their hands on their brooms. Dust was everywhere. Mill workers swept dust outside. They dumped it down the mountainside. I remember seeing employees come out of the mine off the bus so caked with dust I wondered what in the world is going on here. I never knew any working conditions to be so dusty.

The mill's ventilation stack spewed the dust into the air. The ventilation stack released 5,000 pounds of asbestos every day. When the wind blew from the east, a deadly white dust would cover the town.

For decades, 24 hours a day, the dust fell all over Libby. Dust fell on Libby's gardens. Dust fell on Libby's homes. Dust fell on Libby's high school track. Dust fell on Libby's playgrounds.

Some of the vermiculite went downtown to a plant, right next to the baseball diamonds. The plant popped the vermiculite into Zonolite. Batches of Zonolite spilled all around the plant.

Kids played in the Zonolite. People brought home bags of Zonolite to pour into the attics. People put Zonolite in their walls. People put Zonolite in their gardens. People put vermiculite and ore in road beds. People used vermiculite and ore as aggregate in their driveways.

An article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives would later conclude:

Given the ubiquitous nature of vermiculite contamination in

Libby, along with historical evidence of elevated asbestos

concentrations in the air, it would be difficult to find

participants who could be characterized as unexposed.

Every day, men from the valley went to the mountain to work in the mine and the mill. Every day, these men came home, covered with the fine, deadly white powder.

The powder got into their clothes. The powder got into their curtains. The powder covered their floors.

The fine fibers of tremolite asbestos are easy to inhale. Miners inhaled fibers in the mine. Workers inhaled fibers at the mill. Wives inhaled fibers when they washed their husband's clothes. Children inhaled fibers when they played on the carpet.

And those fibers caused respiratory disease. Those fibers caused a serious lung disease called asbestosis. And those fibers caused a serious form of cancer, mesothelioma, which plagues the chest and abdominal cavities.

Tremolite asbestos causes unique diseases. These diseases are highly progressive and deceptive. These diseases often result in severe impairment or death, without the typical warning markers that show up on x-rays. Without the usual medical signals, the people of Libby often went undiagnosed.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that people from Libby suffer from asbestos-related disease at a rate 40-to- 60 times the national average. People from Libby suffer from the asbestos cancer mesothelioma at a rate 100 times the national average.

Because of the W.R. Grace mine and the mill, hundreds of people in Libby died from asbestos-related diseases. And hundreds of current and former area residents are now ill.

The people in Libby will be plagued by asbestos for years to come. These diseases can take 40 years to appear. Hundreds more will fall victim to these diseases in the future.

Now, the people of Libby must watch their neighbors struggle to tend their gardens. They must watch their neighbors struggle to walk to the cafe. They must watch their neighbors struggle to provide a future for their children. And they must wonder if they, too, will fall ill.

Hundreds of people live in discomfort. Hundreds of people live in pain. ``It took my mother 17 months to slowly suffocate,'' said Gayla Benefield.

After Gayla's mother died in 1996, Gayla and her sister sued W.R. Grace. They brought only the second such lawsuit to be decided by a jury in Libby. W.R. Grace had quietly settled dozens of other claims with agreements of secrecy.

In 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency started to investigate. The EPA found tremolite contamination in the air around the nursery. They found it near the ball fields. They found it inside homes.

The EPA started cleaning up. The entire community of Libby was designated a Superfund site. Libby was listed on the EPA's National Priorities List.

The EPA concluded:

The occurrence of non-occupational asbestos-related disease

that has been observed among Libby residents is extremely

unusual, and has not been associated with asbestos mines

elsewhere, suggesting either very high and prolonged

environmental exposures and/or increased toxicity of this

form of amphibole asbestos.

The EPA has worked hard. The EPA has shown a good response and solid clean-up work. And the EPA is committed to finishing the job. I commend them. I made many visits to Libby--many, many times. I talked with EPA officials over the years, and I think they have done a pretty good job.

The EPA has identified more than a thousand properties in Libby that still need cleaning up.

The agency has pushed back the timeframe for cleaning up the town from 2004 to 2008. After having been in Libby for 3 years, the agency had completed only 10 percent of the cleanup work needed to give the town a clean bill of health. The EPA must keep Libby a priority.

In 1999, I was the first high-ranking elected official to visit Libby. Since the winter of 1999, I have gone to Libby 16 times. I have worked heard to get funds to help with cleanup, health care, and economic development.

I have looked into the eyes of people in Libby. I have seen mothers and fathers, sister and brothers, husbands

and wives. I have listened to their troubling stories.

In Libby, I heard many concerns of residents who cannot afford their health care. People are sick. Many are getting sicker. They are dying up there. Health care is one of the most pressing needs facing Libby.

In 2000, I helped to establish the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases, or CARD. The CARD clinic has done a tremendous job providing health care and screening for Libby residents. CARD needs additional Federal dollars to provide more and better care.

The healthcare costs of treating asbestos-related disease can be devastating. Simple, routine procedures to help a person breathe more easily can cost more than $30,000. Those costs continue to add up. They are crippling a community that is struggling to get back on its feet.

The people of Libby face a health care crisis. This crisis was caused by alarming rates of tremolite asbestos-related disease. Treating the sick people in Libby will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It was caused by no fault of their own, but, I might add, by a company that knew it was damaging and killing the people in that community.

Libby is working to overcome years of asbestos exposure from the W.R. Grace mine. They have been through enough. They did not ask for this lot. Affording quality health care remains one of the biggest hurdles for the town to move forward.

That is why I fought to make sure that asbestos bills working through the Senate addressed the needs of the people of Libby. When, in May of this year, the Judiciary Committee voted to report S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, the committee included appropriate language.

The good people of Libby need our help. They are dying up there. They cannot afford health care. I am dedicated to getting them the healthcare treatment that they need and deserve. I made a commitment to the people of Libby and I intend to work together with my colleagues to see that commitment honored.

Asbestos disease has devastated many communities across the country But tremolite asbestos hit Libby hardest of all. Libby is unique. The type of asbestos at Libby is unique. The duration of exposure at Libby is unique. The manner in which asbestos disease manifests itself in Libby is unique. And the community-wide exposure in Libby was unique. That is why the tailored solution that the Judiciary Committee has proposed makes sense.

I want my colleagues to know that I will fight to defend the Libby provisions in the asbestos bill. Libby is extremely important to me. If the Congress takes out the Libby provisions from the bill, they will lose my vote.

People in Libby are dying from tremolite asbestos exposure. The town has risen mightily to the challenges that it has faced. But they need our help. They deserve our help.

The people in Libby are working hard to revitalize their economy and their community. They are rightly proud of their resilience and their ability to land on their feet. They deserve all the help that we can give them to make their town whole again.

I urge my colleagues to support the Libby provisions in the asbestos bill. Help us to right this terrible wrong. Help these hundreds of suffering people to get health care and help save the life of this town.

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

Mr. President, today we begin debate on the free trade agreement between the United States and Bahrain. This is an agreement that strengthens our ties with a stalwart ally in a troubled part of the world. It is an agreement with a leading reformer in the Middle East, and with the most open economy in the Arab world. And it is an agreement worthy of our support.

On the first day of enactment of the U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, 100 percent of trade in manufactured goods will be duty free, opening up markets for U.S. exports of motor vehicles and parts, medical equipment, refrigeration equipment, et cetera. Agricultural exports are also expected to rise, and I hope Montana beef is among them.

The services chapter is the most robust of any agreement the United States has negotiated. Bahrain has promised American companies doing business in the kingdom a regime free of barriers, modern in its regulation, and respectful of intellectual property rights.

For Bahrain, this agreement means greater integration into the world economy, a better environment for its workers, and a pioneering role in the Arab world. For the Middle East as a region, I hope this agreement is a firmly planted seed that will grow prosperity, openness, and stability.

A strong agreement such as this one does not automatically happen. It takes hard work. It takes perseverance, followthrough. It takes vision. Fortunately, the United States and Bahraini officials have these qualities in spades. I applaud their hard work. Ambassador Belooshi-- who, I might add, is observing these proceedings close by, very close, I might add--of the Kingdom of Bahrain typifies the courageous action and progressive thinking the Bahrainis have shown through the FTA process, and we should applaud him for it. He has done a super job.

I also applaud Ambassador Rob Portman and his predecessor, Bob Zoellick. Ambassador Zoellick negotiated a strong agreement, and Ambassador Portman saw it through. Ambassador Portman listened to Senators' interests in monitoring Bahrain's end to its boycott of Israel, and together we worked out a solution. He has been equally energetic and flexible in working with my colleagues in the House Ways and Means Committee to alleviate their concerns, especially on labor.

I also applaud the very capable and energetic staff of the USTR. They are dedicated public servants, putting in long hours and endless effort into their work. They do a super job.

This is the first FTA to come before us since the very contentious Central American Free Trade agreement.

The overwhelming support I expect the Bahrain agreement to secure is a testament to what can be achieved when the administration and the Congress work together to address concerns.

The Bahrain FTA shows that when the administration keeps an open dialogue with Congress, we can find common ground and achieve our common goals. I hope that we can continue to build upon the success of this FTA in helping to heal the wounds of previous battles.

I think we have before us a model for open dialogue, and for congressional support for trade liberalization.

I hope that we can take this model and apply it to much larger trading partners and even bolder agreements. Agreements that will open bigger markets, realize greater opportunities, and make our industries even more competitive.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the U.S.-Bahrain free trade agreement. I urge my colleagues to pledge their support as well.

Toward the end of the 14th century, Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus ruled a waning Byzantine Empire. Looking across the Bosporus, he saw a growing threat from the Moslem Ottoman Turks. In 1390, he sent an embassy up the Adriatic Sea to Venice to build alliances. And to head the mission, he named the 35-year-old Manuel Chrysoloras.

Although his embassy to Venice did not prosper, Chrysoloras' reputation did. And in 1396, the chancellor of the University of Florence invited him there to teach Greek. The chancellor wrote: ``[W]e firmly believe that both Greeks and Latins have always taken learning to a higher level by extending it to each other's literature.'' Chrysoloras accepted.

But no one in Italy had studied Greek for 700 years. Chrysoloras began. He taught Greek in Florence, Bologna, Venice, and Rome. He translated Homer and Plato. He wrote the first basic Greek grammar in Western Europe.

As the early renaissance poet Dante Alighieri wrote in The Divine Comedy, ``A great flame follows a little spark.'' The flame of learning spread through the rest of Europe, reconnecting the West with classical antiquity, experimentalism, and the desire to live well.

Chrysoloras and scholars like him helped to begin the scientific revolution and artistic transformation that would become known as the Italian Renaissance. Europe emerged from the backwater. Commerce and exploration burst forth. The Modern Age began.

Renaissance historian Matteo Palmieri exhorted a fellow Italian of the mid 15th century to ``[t]hank God that it has been permitted to him to be born in this new age, so full of hope and promise, which already rejoices in a greater array of nobly-gifted souls than the world has seen in the thousand years that have preceded it,''

With the Renaissance, Western Europe began its domination of the world economy. The West has held this power so long that it is easy-- especially for us here in the West--to take it for granted. But it need not have been so.

In the century leading up to the year 1000, Moorish Spain could claim a far more advanced civilization than that of Christian Italy. Cordoba's streets were paved and lit. Cordoba had 300 public baths and 70 libraries. Cordoba's great central library alone held 400,000 books--more than all of France. The Arab postal service delivered regular mail as far as India. Arab civilization was internally creative. And Arab thinkers of the time were open to Persian and Indian science, as well.

In the 12th century, an English scholar named Adelard of Bath traveled through the Islamic lands of Spain, North Africa, and Asia Minor. Adelard reported: ``The further south you go, the more they know. They know how to think.''

And Adelard carried back from the south a way of thinking. He said: ``Although man is not armed by nature, nor is naturally swiftest in flight, yet

he has something better by far--reason.''

The advanced Moorish state suffered civil conflict and fell to the less-developed Christian states of Europe. Finally, on January 2, 1492, the leader of the last Muslim stronghold in Granada surrendered to armies of a resurgent, newly-united Christian Spain. The remaining Spanish Muslims were forced to leave Spain or convert to Christianity.

At the end of the first millennium, Arab Spain had the most advanced science and economy of its day. But in the centuries that followed, it fell to a newly-emergent Western Europe.

At the end of the first millennium, Western Europe slumbered in its Dark Ages. But in the next centuries, it emerged into the Renaissance.

We here today inherit the legacy of the Italian Renaissance. We have absorbed the learning of the Arab Caliphates. And we inhabit the land made known to Europeans by another voyage of 1492.

At the end of the second millennium, America has the most advanced science and economy of our day. But we cannot take that leadership for granted.

In the centuries ahead, if America wishes to remain the most advanced economy of our day, we will need to create a new American renaissance.

We need this new American renaissance, because leadership does not come from continuing to do what we do already. Smart people in China and India and around the globe are quickly learning how to do what we do now. And people in China and India and around the globe will be able to do it more cheaply.

Instead, leadership comes from constant innovation. Leadership comes from rapidly adjusting what we do to what the market demands. And leadership comes from serving the customer. Fortunately, these are characteristics at which Americans excel.

This is my eighth Senate floor statement this year on competitiveness. I began in June with a general statement on competitiveness and America's place in the world. In June, I also spoke of education and competitiveness. In July, I spoke of trade and competitiveness and health care and competitiveness. In September, I spoke of savings and competitiveness. In October, I spoke of energy and competitiveness. In November, I spoke of immigration and competitiveness. And today, I conclude this series of addresses with this discussion of the need for the new American renaissance.

My message is this: To foster this continuing American renaissance, American government cannot stand idly by. Remaining economically competitive will require action. Let me summarize my six-step agenda for action. This is what we need to do:

First, we must improve education. The Italian Renaissance relied on the learning of the Greeks that Manuel Chrysoloras helped to spread. The new American renaissance will rely on our having the best educated workforce of the centuries to come.

We need to ensure that children come to school ready to learn. We need to ensure that children have modern and well-equipped schools. And we need to ensure that children have small classes.

We should raise salaries for teachers in poor schools by 50 percent. We should raise the salaries of top-performing teachers and teachers in math, science, and languages by another 50 percent.

We can ensure quality afterschool programs. We can lengthen the school year.

We must support community colleges and link them more strongly to workforce opportunities. We must expand Pell Grants. We must improve, consolidate, and expand education tax incentives. We must expand and extend the deduction for tuition expenses. We must increase scholarships and loan forgiveness for science and engineering students. We must expand the Hope and Lifetime Learning credits.

We need to make it possible for non-traditional students to obtain an education. We need to retrain workers whose jobs are lost to trade and help them reenter the workforce.

We should make it easier, consistent with the requirements of national security, for foreign students to study in America.

We should make visa renewals during multiyear studies routine. And we should change visa renewal requirements policies that are now contingent on students' return to their home countries.

Second, we must foster research. For it was discovery that helped bring about the renaissance.

We need to reward innovation and risk-taking. We need to fully fund research support organizations like the- National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. We need to simplify and make permanent the R&D tax credit.

We should encourage talented foreign students to study, research, and innovate at American universities and research institutions. And we should simplify the permanent residence process for exceptional foreign students with advanced science degrees from American universities.

Third, we have to advance international trade. Insularity characterized the Dark Ages. The Renaissance spread from an international spark. And the ensuing blaze of international commerce brought on the Modern Age.

We must open new markets for American exports worldwide. We must improve enforcement of existing trade agreements. We must do more to defend American intellectual property rights. And we must prompt China to further loosen its currency.

We should look more to Asia for bilateral agreements. We should advance regional trade agreements in Asia. We should seek out further sectoral agreements such as the WTO's Information Technology Agreement. And we should launch an initiative in the advanced medical equipment sector.

We need to expand trade adjustment assistance to service workers. And we need to expand wage insurance.

We can make it easier for major American companies to employ and train their overseas employees. And we can facilitate international participation in meetings and conferences and travel to trade shows.

Fourth, we must address the burden that high health care costs place on American business. And we must help provide health insurance to those who do not have it.

We can provide health insurance tax credits to small employers. We can fund employer-based group-purchasing pools. We can increase funding for high-risk pools. We can expand Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We can permit a Medicare buy-in for the near- elderly.

We need to facilitate the use of health information technology. We need to use health IT to link medication administration to a patient's clinical information. We need to foster standards for the interoperability of health IT systems. We need to improve healthcare providers' ability to exchange clinical data. And we need to provide loans and grants to encourage the use of health IT. The Senate has passed legislation this session to further many of these health IT goals. The House must do it, too, and move quickly to provide higher Medicare reimbursements and work to improve quality of care, known as ``pay-for-performance.''

We should provide higher Medicare reimbursements to providers working to improve the quality of delivered care. And we should coordinate senior care to ensure adequate preventive care and chronic condition management. This year's Senate-passed spending reconciliation bill took the first steps toward pay-for-performance. Although there is much in that bill that gives me pause, we should enact those pay-for- performance changes.

Fifth, we must increase national savings to finance the investment and innovation of the next renaissance.

We need to plug the biggest leak in our national savings pool: the federal budget deficit. We need to truthfully report current and future Federal Government spending needs. We need to restore pay-as-you-go rules for both entitlement spending and tax cuts.

We should reduce the annual tax gap. We should eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending. We should eliminate wasteful and unfair tax breaks, such as abusive tax shelters and corporate tax loopholes. And we should slow the growth in healthcare costs.

We can increase private savings. We can improve financial education. We can encourage automatic enrollment of

eligible workers in retirement savings plans. We can bring payroll- deduction retirement savings to private sector workers lacking 401(k)s or similar plans. We can make incentives for saving more progressive. And we can extend the Savers' Credit and expand it to Americans with no income tax liability.

Sixth, for a modern renaissance, we must address the need for sustainable and environmentally compatible sources of energy.

We can launch a new ``Manhattan Project'' to develop clean alternative energies. We can foster the use of hydrogen and fuel cells. We can foster wind energy. We can make a clear commitment to the development of biomass and ethanol-based fuels.

We should encourage energy R&D through research grants to industry and educational institutions and tax incentives for R&D. We should offer prizes to spur innovation.

We need an investment tax credit for coal gasification technology. We need a tax credit for companies that generate fuel using an updated version of the F-T process. And we need a Federal loan guarantee so that companies can finance these capital investments. This year's energy and highway bills addressed some of these needs.

Taken together, these policies form a bold agenda to advance American competitiveness. They can help maintain American economic leadership in the world. And they can help to preserve high-wage American jobs here at home.

Beginning next month, I will introduce a comprehensive 2006 legislative package to strengthen America's competitiveness in a changing world. This package will encompass several bills that cover the many aspects of competitiveness. I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort.

The early Renaissance poet, Dante Alighieri, embodied the spirit of his times when he wrote in The Divine Comedy that people ``were not born to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.''

And from that grounding of virtue and knowledge flowed naturally Dante's description: ``And thence we came forth, to see again the stars.''

Let us follow virtue and knowledge and foster a new American renaissance. Let us strengthen America's competitiveness in a changing world. And let America again go forth, toward the stars.

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

The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling.

The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes?

The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons who do not currently

have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns would not be released to the public.

This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. Stevens promptly complied.

When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55.

Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant for secrecy.

Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who were before the Senate.

Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to provide oversight.

Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees-- those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, ``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents value.

The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill enacted.

The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling.

The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes?

The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons who do not currently

have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns would not be released to the public.

This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. Stevens promptly complied.

When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55.

Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant for secrecy.

Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who were before the Senate.

Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to provide oversight.

Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees-- those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, ``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents value.

The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this bill enacted.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the winners of the United States Professor of the Year Award. Since 1981, this prestigious honor has been awarded to professors who show an exceptional dedication to teaching. This year, professors from 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam are being honored with this award. Their disciplines are varied; they come from both private and public institutions. But they have one thing in common, and that is dedication to teaching.

These undergraduate professors do more than teach information. They impact their classes by inspiring students to excel. They think up new and inventive ways for their students to learn. They create programs that allow students to learn through working and teaching experience. Sometimes these professors go as far as establishing new departments in their institutions, broadening academic choices for undergraduates. College professors contribute so much to their institutions and surrounding communities, and often these vast contributions go unnoticed by society. I am proud that we are taking time today to honor these inspiring professors:

2005 U.S. Professors of the Year, National and State Winners

Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor, W.A. Hayden

Schilling, Robert Critchfield Professor of English History,

The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio.

Outstanding Community Colleges Professor, Katherine R.

Rowell, Professor of Sociology, Sinclair Community College,

Dayton, Ohio.

Outstanding Doctoral and Research Universities Professor,

Buzz Alexander, Professor of English Language and Literature,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Outstanding Master's Universities and Colleges Professor,

Carlos G. Gutierrez, Professor of Chemistry, California State

University, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

State winners

Alabama: Guy A. Caldwell, Assistant Professor of Biological

Sciences, University of Alabama.

Arkansas: Scott Roulier, Associate Professor of Political

Science, Lyon College.

California: Philip R. Kesten, Associate Professor of

Physics, Santa Clara University.

Colorado: Daniel J. Pack, Professor of Electrical

Engineering, United States Air Force Academy.

Connecticut: Lawrence F. Roberge, Associate Professor &

Chair, Department of Science, Goodwin College.

District of Columbia: Matthew O'Gara, Associate

Professorial, Lecturer, Elliott School of International

Affairs, George Washington University.

Florida: Ana M. Cruz, Professor of Accounting, Miami Dade

College, Wolfson Campus.

Georgia: Julie K. Bartley, Associate Professor of

Geosciences, University of West Georgia.

Guam: Kyle D. Smith, Professor of Psychology, University of

Guam.

Idaho: Rhett Diessner, Professor of Education, Lewis-Clark

State College.

Illinois: M. Vali Siadat, Professor & Chair, Department of

Mathematics, Richard J. Daley College.

Indiana: John B. Iverson, Professor of Biology, Earlham

College.

Iowa: James L. Brimeyer, Instructor of Composition &

Literature, Northeast Iowa Community College.

Kansas: Elsie R. Shore, Professor of Psychology, Wichita

State University.

Kentucky: Peggy Shadduck Palombi, Associate Professor of

Biology, Transylvania University.

Louisiana: Roger White, Associate Professor of Political

Science, Loyola University New Orleans.

Maryland: James M. Wallace, Professor of Mechanical

Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park.

Massachusetts: Walter H. Johnson, Professor & Chair,

Department of Physics, Suffolk University.

Michigan: Gary B. Gagnon, Assistant Professor of Marketing,

Central Michigan University.

Minnesota: Mark Wallert, Professor of Biology, Minnesota

State University Moorhead.

Missouri: Rebecca Kuntz Willits, Assistant Professor,

Biomedical Engineering, Saint Louis University.

Montana: Jakki J. Mohr, Professor of Marketing, University

of Montana.

Nebraska: Daniel G. Deffenbaugh, Associate Professor of

Religion, Hastings College.

Nevada: Paul F. Starrs, Professor of Geography, University

of Nevada, Reno.

New Hampshire: Debra S. Picchi, Professor of Anthropology,

Franklin Pierce College.

New Jersey: Phyllis Owens, Associate Professor of Computer

Graphics, Camden County College.

New Mexico: Elise Pookie Sautter, Professor of Marketing,

New Mexico State University.

New York: Jo Beth Mertens, Assistant Professor of

Economics, Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

North Carolina: Cindy C. Combs, Professor of Political

Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

North Dakota: Jim Coykendall, Associate Professor of

Mathematics, North Dakota State University.

Ohio: Nathan W. Klingbeil, Associate Professor of

Mechanical Engineering, Wright State University.

Oregon: Jerry D. Gray, Professor of Economics, Willamette

University.

Pennsylvania: Jerome Zurek, Professor & Chair, Department

of English & Communication, Cabrini College.

South Carolina: Norman M. Scarborough, Associate Professor

of Information Science, Presbyterian College.

Tennessee: Jette Halladay, Professor of Speech and Theatre,

Middle Tennessee State University.

Texas: Susan Edwards, Professor of History, Cy-Fair

College.

Utah: Yasmen Simonian, Professor & Chair, Department of

Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Weber State University.

Vermont: Sunhee Choi, Professor of Chemistry and

Biochemistry, Middlebury College.

Virginia: John H. Roper, Professor of History, Emory &

Henry College.

Washington: Bruce Palmquist, Associate Professor of Physics

& Science Education, Central Washington University.

West Virginia: Carolyn Peluso Atkins, Professor of Speech

Pathology & Audiology, West Virginia University.

Wisconsin: Jody M. Roy, Associate Professor & Chair,

Department of Communication, Ripon College

Madam President, this morning we intend to continue two major amendments from this side of the aisle. The amendment of Senator Conrad from North Dakota proposes a fiscally responsible substitute; the amendment of the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is regarding energy price gouging. These are both very important amendments and an important debate. I ask consent the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside so Senator Conrad may offer an amendment.

Madam 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, we are moving along on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. I got clearance from the chairman of the committee to ask unanimous consent that there be 40 minutes of debate remaining on the Conrad amendment equally divided, 20 minutes in favor of those who are speaking against the amendment and then 20 minutes to be controlled by the Senator from North Dakota.

And also that there would be no second-degree amendments and the vote would then occur immediately following the 40 minutes in relation to the Conrad amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the coming vote on the Conrad amendment, the next speakers and amendments be in order as follows: First, Senator Domenici be recognized to speak for 20 minutes; Senator Feinstein will be recognized to offer two amendments on which there will be a total of 30 minutes equally divided on the two amendments; following that time, that Senator Cantwell be recognized for the purpose of offering her amendment with respect to energy price gouging, and there be 60 minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the substitute amendment.

Let me first explain that this substitute does not contain everything we had hoped to offer. Some of the items that we cannot consider today, though, are extremely important to American families.

They include the Lincoln-Snowe child tax credit fix. The Lincoln- Snowe provisions would ensure that the working poor can continue to receive this valuable credit. Regrettably, the threshold climbs each year. And the minimum wage remains stagnant.

So these families receive a smaller refundable child tax credit each passing year.

Another package we had hoped to include were a few incentives for military families. These include a provision to ensure that families with someone serving in combat can continue to receive the earned income tax credit. With the heavy strain that the Iraq war continues to put on military families, Congress can surely do more for these families.

The substitute today does not address a few items for the Gulf States I had hoped to include.

As I have said many times in the past few months, we must address the immediate needs of the hundreds of thousands of people affected by the hurricanes that ravaged the Gulf States. We cannot forget that the recovery in the gulf region is not over. It has hardly begun.

People have lost everything and need help to rebuild their lives. That help has not arrived. We have more work to do in this Congress to make sure displaced families have access to health care, unemployment benefits while they search for work, childcare so they can get to work, and foster care services for needy kids.

It is irresponsible to leave these people behind and move on to cutting taxes before we have completed our job of providing real relief to those that have been hurt by the storms.

But for procedural reasons, we are offering a different substitute. I believe that this substitute is a better approach than the bill before the Senate today.

I want to highlight some principles that we pursued in this substitute. And what we are not doing here is as important as what we are.

Other than the disaster recovery incentives, we do not add to the deficit. That is an important distinction between our substitute and the bill before the Senate.

I know that the majority leadership hopes that spending reconciliation cuts will occur at some point. But even if Congress does enact those highly controversial cuts, the bill before us today would still add to the deficit.

This is exactly what Alan Greenspan warned us against last week: deficit-financed tax cuts.

How can we face constituents who will see their food stamps or child support services cut? How can we tell them that we had to make those cuts to pay for tax cuts?

How could we tell them that Congress cut their benefits for tax cuts that will not even take effect until several years down the road?

Another thing that we do not do in this substitute is any extension of tax cuts that don't expire this year. The last 3 years have been the 3 highest deficits in the Nation's history. At some point, we need to do some belt-tightening.

In all fairness, I support many of these tax cuts. I have cosponsored and voted for many of them. But we simply need to prioritize this year. We need to do what is urgent first.

The bill before us today does not include the capital gains and dividends tax cuts. But we know that it may well appear at some point during this reconciliation process, especially now that the House tax- writers have chosen capital gains and dividends tax cuts to the exclusion of AMT relief.

Some cite the $20 billion figure for the 2-year extension of capital gains and dividends cuts.

But we are really talking about a $50 billion cost over 10 years. And that is the way that we usually score tax bills.

There are some good items in the bill before us today, but I think in order to be a great bill, we must achieve fiscal responsibility. Our substitute not only meets all the budget numbers, it does better. The 2006 loss is below $11 billion, the 5-year loss is $20 billion, and the 10-year figure actually cuts Federal deficit by $6 billion.

It comes down to timing, priorities, and fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.

Mr. President, I ask my good friend to cut that down significantly. We are oversubscribed in time. It is a zero-sum game. Extra time you take means less time for other Senators later on. I urge you to modify your request to a much lower number, please.

Let's make it 5 and 5.

Mr. President, I believe that there is still time remaining so that Senator Cantwell has an opportunity to speak on her amendment. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order following the Cantwell amendment be the following: an amendment by the Senator from Illinois on FEMA, 30 minutes equally divided; the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, on poverty, 30 minutes equally divided; an amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, 20 minutes equally divided; and an amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, on the practice of medicine--there is no time limit at the moment on that one--and that thereafter there be 30 minutes equally divided on the Dorgan amendment.

I do not see the Senator from Washington on the floor to finish with her amendment. I ask that her time be reserved so she can offer it at an appropriate time, and the same for the time in opposition. So we can now proceed with the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I wonder if we can proceed with the second amendment. It was my understanding the Senator had one amendment and

had a time agreement on it. Other Senators have come up, asking for consideration of their amendments. I do not want to inconvenience other Senators.

All things considered, Mr. President, I think it proper not to agree to the request at this point because the Senator from Massachusetts already spoke to us about an amendment of his, and that is in the queue.

In fairness to other Senators, I don't want to inconvenience other Senators.

So as not to interrupt the flow, the chairman would like to speak on the Senator's amendment first, if that is all right.

No objection.

Mr. President, under a unanimous consent agreement we entered into earlier, we are now waiting for Senator Reed of Rhode Island to offer his amendment, and also Senator Coburn to offer his amendment. And under the agreement, thereafter, there is time remaining on the Dorgan amendment. But while we are waiting for Senator Reed and/ or Senator Coburn, or anyone else, to come to the floor, I will say a few words about the alternative minimum tax.

The bill before us today does extend the alternative minimum tax exemption level and provides for an increase in inflation. That is the good news. But it is not all good news because there will still be about 600,000 additional Americans paying higher taxes next year under the alternative minimum tax, sometimes called the stealth tax.

Why is that? That is because the so-called hold-harmless provision in the legislation before us today, or the patch, as some have called it, does not hold everyone harmless. For example, for the year 2005, there are 3.6 million American taxpayers paying the alternative minimum tax. Under the bill before us today, there will be 4.2 million taxpayers paying that tax in 2006. That is an increase of 600,000 taxpayers, and it is an increase I hope we can avoid.

The alternative minimum tax, to refresh recollections, was originally enacted in 1969. Why did Congress do that? Congress discovered in that year there were about 155 very wealthy taxpayers making over $200,000 a year but who paid no taxes. Congress felt: Well, gee, that is not right; people earning over $200,000 a year at least should pay some taxes. So Congress passed the alternative minimum tax. What was once a class tax, unfortunately, has now been morphed into a mass tax.

To refresh your recollection, whenever individuals calculate their income taxes, they calculate their income taxes and then they have to go through a separate, parallel calculation under what is called the alternative minimum tax. Under that separate, parallel calculation, there are certain provisions that cannot be deducted, and that includes the standard deduction or the personal exemptions, and some others. Then you look at the bottom line of the two calculations, and if one is higher than the other--it does not make any difference which one it is--you pay that higher tax.

Because these provisions were not indexed to inflation, over time more and more people are finding they have to pay this stealth tax, this alternative minimum tax. Frankly, if it is not changed by the end of this decade, that tax will ensnare about 30 million Americans, a majority of who will have adjusted gross incomes below $100,000.

The Internal Revenue Service National Taxpayer Advocate has identified this alternative minimum tax as the most serious problem facing individual taxpayers. By the end of the decade, the majority of filers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be paying this additional tax; that is, the majority of Americans with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will be paying this, unless it is fixed.

In addition, virtually all married couples in that income group-- $75,000 to $100,000--with two children will be paying the AMT by the end of the decade.

Now, I have filed legislation to repeal the AMT altogether. I am joined in that effort by the chairman, Senator Grassley, and 20 other Senators who have the same view as me. I think we should do it. It is clear, though, that repeal is very expensive. But it is the right thing to do, and we should do our level best to try to find a way to work toward total repeal, and try to find the revenue to pay for it.

In the meantime, though, we should do all we can to make sure this stealth tax does not hit one more family next year.

As you may know, Mr. President, the House companion bill on this same subject, tax reconciliation, which is working its way over here, does not in any way address this AMT issue. But it does contain provisions to extend the capital gains and dividends cuts for 2 more years. Under current law, which we enacted in 2003, deductions will stay in effect at least until the end of 2008. Nevertheless, the House in their bill made the decision to extend that capital gains and dividends cut for 2 more years past 2008. But they did not include the alternative minimum tax. That is wrong.

Senator Grassley and I have discussed this. We want to make a change. At the appropriate time I think we will make a change to the underlying bill so not one more American pays this stealth tax compared to current law. As I mentioned, under the bill currently before us, about 600,000 more Americans will pay it. We feel that is wrong. It is a mistake. We shouldn't do that. We will find a way, as the chairman and I have found, to make sure not one more American has to pay this additional tax.

Otherwise, I might say that under the House-passed version of tax reconciliation, 17 million families will see a tax increase next year. Under the House bill, working its way over here to conference, 17 million families will see a tax increase next year thanks to the alternative minimum tax.

In fact, CRS has found that if the House proposal prevails, next year a family with three children, making $63,000 a year, will also be hit by this additional stealth tax, the AMT. I believe, and I know the chairman believes, and many of us in the Senate believe, this family- unfriendly AMT should not be allowed to creep deeper and deeper into the middle class each year. At the appropriate time, we are going to make that change, that adjustment, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent----

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized to offer his amendment and speak for 10 minutes, and the time thereafter until 3:30 be equally divided on the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, I amend my request to accommodate the request of the Senator from North Dakota. The Senator from Rhode Island can offer his amendment, and when he is finished, there will be a half hour on the Dorgan amendment. He gets 15, and the other side gets 15, and the vote will now occur at 3:40.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield a second, I ask unanimous consent that after the Coburn amendment is debated or set aside, Senator Santorum be recognized to speak for 15 minutes, Mr. Byrd be recognized to speak for 30 minutes, and Senator Feingold be recognized to offer his amendment on pay-go with 30 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. President, I propose that we reach a time agreement on this next pending amendment, which is the Coburn amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Coburn amendment be limited to 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I have a hard time hearing the Senator.

I hear the Senator from Oklahoma, with all due respect. I wonder if we could agree to maybe 1\1/2\ hours.

With the understanding that perhaps an hour and a half may not all be used.

I renew my request for 1\1/2\ hours equally divided.

Mr. President, I believe I manage the time in opposition on this amendment.

Accordingly, I yield 20 minutes to the chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Voinovich.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.

I yield whatever time the Senator would appreciate having.

Mr. President, this is very important. It helps tremendously to improve some provisions in the underlying bill so no one else has to pay AMT; and, second, R&D provisions, enhanced R&D and contractors are not excluded. I support this.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I think we are ready to wrap up debate on the pending amendment.

Mr. President, a little bit out of order here, but under the previous order, Senator Santorum and Senator Byrd were to speak after the disposition of the pending amendment. At this point I have learned Senator Santorum and Senator Byrd wish to speak at a later point.

I ask consent that the pending amendments be laid aside so Senator Feingold may offer his amendment, that is, after the disposition of this amendment.

That is correct.

Not now.

Mr. President, it is after Senator Feingold's amendment? After that?

OK, fine.

Mr. President, I might also say that means as to the list of Senators who come to me and say they want to speak on their amendments, I have said to them they could, but there will be a short period in which to speak, and they will have to come down here and speak some time before 7:30, if they want any time to speak.

The first vote would be at 7:30.

After the first vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from Wisconsin can offer his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from New York may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I see Senator Santorum. Under previous order, he has the right to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment temporarily be laid aside so I can offer an amendment on behalf of the Democratic leader, Senator Reid.

I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that Senator Nelson of Florida may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that Senator Bingaman from New Mexico may offer an amendment. I ask him to limit his remarks to a couple minutes. I yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, may offer an amendment. I ask him, too, to limit his remarks to 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so that the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, may offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he can limit his remarks to 3 minutes, too.

I ask unanimous consent to modify Reid amendment No. 2653 with the text I now send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside so that the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, may offer an amendment at the very least. If the time has now run and we are going to begin voting, at least she is next in the queue after the amendments that we have already listed.

I ask unanimous consent to modify the previously adopted amendment No. 2647. I send the modification to the desk and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. President, was the last unanimous consent request agreed to?

Mr. President, we have a matter we have to fix. I ask unanimous consent that the modification to the Schumer amendment No. 2635 be vitiated.

Mr. President, the modification should be to the Reid of Nevada amendment.

Mr. President, there are four votes remaining. It is my understanding they will all be voiced. However, other Senators have said they have amendments they want to offer, as well. It is appropriate we begin to cut off the number of amendments we consider tonight. Four Senators contacted me: Senator Boxer, Senator Dayton, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu. The time has come to limit the number of amendments we have tonight. We have done a pretty good job accommodating Senators.

I ask unanimous consent after the three remaining amendments-- Senators Bingaman, Durbin, and Nelson--are taken up, and I am told will all be voiced, that following those amendments only the amendments then be in order are amendments offered by Senator Boxer, Senator Dayton, Senator Kerry, and Senator Landrieu, and that those be the only amendments remaining to be considered to the bill tonight and to the bill at all.

I amend that by saying it is my understanding that Senator Landrieu has two, but they will be voiced and not require a recorded vote, and there will be a managers' amendment that will be in order to the bill. Senator Harkin would like to be added to the list with one amendment. So, therefore, it will be: Boxer, Dayton, Kerry, Landrieu, Landrieu--again, Landrieu's will be voiced--and Harkin. I am hopeful some of these others will also be voiced when we get to them.

Senator Dayton has two amendments.

That is our intention.

Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. We are making a lot of progress tonight, and we will make even greater progress if the Senate stays in order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Craig- Rockefeller amendment also be added to the list of amendments still in order. And that will be it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Craig- Rockefeller amendment be added to the list of amendments still in order tonight.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these be 10- minute votes, with 2 minutes between the votes, but otherwise 10-minute votes.

Mr. President, I anticipate that Senator Landrieu is ready to offer her amendment. I suggest she be recognized.

I share Chairman Grassley's views with respect to curbing abusive tax shelters, and I look forward to working with Senators Levin and Coleman to shut down these abusive transactions.

excise taxes

Mr. President, this legislation did not happen by itself; it took hard work and perseverance. There is a long list of individuals who must be thanked.

First, I want to thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Senate Legislative Counsel for their service. They did a tremendous job with this bill.

I want to thank George Yin, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, in particular. This will probably be the last tax bill George will work on for the U.S. Congress. George is returning to the University of Virginia where he is a professor. His last day is tomorrow. George has served on the Joint Committee on Taxation for just over 2 years. During that time, he has provided tremendous insight and knowledge to me and my staff. He is called upon to know all the nuances of the Tax Code and provide recommendations on tax policy. He does this with unfailing competence. His work is of the highest caliber. I commend him for his work and thank him for his service to the U.S. Congress.

Next, I must thank the hardworking staff of the Finance Committee. They stayed up many a sleepless night, and I applaud them for their expert counsel. I want to thank some staff members in particular. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican

staff, especially Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Cathy Barre, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, Dean Zerbe, Chris Javens, John O'Neill, and Nick Wyatt.

I also thank my staff for their perseverance and dedication, including Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, Bill Dauster, Melissa Mueller, Matt Jones, Judy Miller, Jon Selib, Ryan Abraham, and Tom Klouda. I also thank our dedicated fellows, Mary Baker, Brian Townsend, Richard Litsey, Jorlie Cruz, and Stuart Sirkin.

Finally, I thank our hardworking interns: Jennifer Alwood, Ray Campbell, Mandy Cisneros, Will Larson, and James Reavis.

I want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and my good friend, Senatory Grassley. It is not easy putting together a reconciliation bill. I thank Senator Grassley for once again ensuring a result that could receive broad support. It is my hope that we can maintain the spirit and substance of the Senate bill as we move through conference. We have a good bill before us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, the chairman of the HELP Committee. As he has indicated, his committee, along with Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of that committee, Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, and myself, the four of us worked together to be where we are today. Clearly we are where we are today because a lot of employees, a lot of retirees are very worried about their pension benefits. The essential way to help address that situation is to make sure these plans are more fully funded so as the promise is made, the promise is kept and, second, to make sure the backstop of the PBGC is also there when companies facing incredible pressures worldwide feel they have to no longer live up to their pension obligations and those obligations are passed on to the PBGC.

It is worldwide competitive pressures that big American companies and smaller American companies are facing as well as the Enron collapse which has forced us to take a good, hard look at this to try to find some good solutions. I thank Senator Enzi, Senator Grassley, and Senator Kennedy for their very good work.

It is important to say a little bit about this bill so Americans know what we are doing today. Millions of workers clearly have worked very hard over their lifetime. American workers, when they work, feel they are playing by the rules. They want to play by the rules and they want to do what is right. This bill, frankly, is about making sure that the retirement benefits

are there when people need them, more likely to be there than a lot of people think.

As we start the debate, let's remember why we are here. We are here to protect workers' pension benefits, plainly and simply. That is why we are here. This need was highlighted recently by cover stories in Time magazine and the New York Times Sunday magazine. Their titles were ``The Broken Promise''--that was Time magazine--and ``The End of Pensions'' in the New York Times magazine. I highly recommend all Members of this body read these articles. I read them both. They are very thorough and very perceptive in stating the problems and some of the solutions to the problems Americans face in having retirement benefits.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, was established to protect workers' pensions, but there are limits on PBGC's guarantees. Many participants have been promised benefits in excess of those guaranteed by the PBGC. When a company fails and the pension plan terminates with unfunded benefit promises, these workers and retirees pay severely for pension underfunding with part of their own hard- earned retirement benefits.

For example, the PBGC--and that is the outfit that takes over failed plans--has estimated that almost 7,000 United Airlines workers will lose 50 percent or more of the benefits they had earned under their pension plans. Another 28,000 United Airlines workers will lose between a quarter and half of their benefits. Clearly, as a result, promises to those employees are not being kept. We are here to try to help make sure those promises are better kept, and this bill will help move in that direction.

The most basic building block of pension funding is the interest rate used to determine the present value of benefits to be paid for the plan in the future. This bill provides a permanent replacement for the 30- year Treasury rate which has been used basically for this purpose--that is, determining the interest rate--under current law.

Under this legislation, we will change that. It is true Congress did pass a temporary substitute last year. This bill is to enact a permanent interest rate calculation. This bill would extend the current temporary interest rate--a corporate bond rate--for an additional year, and then begin phasing in a permanent solution known as a modified yield curve of interest rates. Using a yield curve to determine the value of future benefit payments is more accurate than using a single interest rate because the yield curve recognizes that you get a different interest rate on a 5-year loan than, say, on a 15-year loan, and that is relevant because clearly more people work longer than others, so their retirement is a different period of time.

This bill simplifies that yield curve by breaking it into three segments--retaining the improved accuracy of a yield-curve measurement, while making it easier to apply the rates.

There are other key changes to the funding rules.

Unfunded benefit liabilities would have to be paid off over a 7-year period. Ideally, every plan would be 100 percent funded every year, but with fluctuating asset values and interest rates, that is not practical.

Large companies could base cost calculations on their own mortality experience. Workers in some industries do not live as long as the general population. That affects the cost of providing lifetime pensions and should be reflected in an accurate measurement of funding obligations.

The increased utilization of early retirement subsidies that occurs when troubled companies start downsizing is reflected in a special at- risk liability calculation. This will ensure that companies begin funding for subsidized benefits before it is too late.

The at-risk calculation is not a penalty imposed on companies when they are down and out. It is a reflection of increased costs. Someone has to pay those costs. The question is who. Should other companies pay through increases in PBGC premiums? Should workers pay through lost retirement benefits? Or should we, as I believe, require the company that made the promise fund the promise?

Failure to recognize the real cost of benefits is one reason for the system's funding problems. Another is that current law actually would have penalized many employers if they had contributed more to their pension plans.

Employer after employer has told us that we need to allow companies to contribute and deduct more in good times to build a cushion for bad times. This bill does that. It allows companies to deduct contributions that would fund the plan up to 180 percent of the cost of benefits already earned and allows employers to maintain a prefunding account with these extra contributions, which is sort of a rainy day fund, to help them meet contribution requirements when cash is a little tighter.

Our goal is retirement security, assuring workers that benefits they had been promised will be paid. There are two sides to keeping that promise--funding what is promised by the company and also not promising more than a company can afford to pay.

This bill limits increases in a plan's benefit formula if the plan is less than 80 percent funded. If a plan is less than 60 percent funded, then no more benefits can be earned until funding improves. Employers would have to fund up collective bargaining plans to keep these limitations from kicking in.

To make sure poorly funded plans do not become even more unfunded, this bill limits the portion of a benefit that can be paid in a lump sum if a plan is less than 60 percent funded. Lump sum payment of pension benefits can drain plan assets and hurt other workers. No benefits would be forfeited. The difference would be paid as an annuity. Retirement benefits are the largest asset of many workers, and they deserve timely, complete information on the state of their investment. Under this bill, most workers and retirees will receive detailed funding information within 90 days after the end of the year. That is new.

There was a time when pension plans paid monthly benefits at normal retirement age, usually based on years of service and some average compensation. The benefits were heavily weighted to workers who spent their entire career with one company. But in today's competitive world, that is not likely to be the future. Today many companies have moved to cash balance plans or other hybrid arrangements that are structured more similar to 401(k) plans, defined contribution plans. Benefits are earned more evenly over a worker's career and are more portable--easier to move from one job to another--than the traditional pension benefit. There has been uncertainty surrounding these plans, and litigation is ongoing. If defined benefit plans are to be a viable, attractive option in the future--and there is a real question whether they can be, and we are trying to make sure we can be--we must bring some certainty to the rules governing these arrangements. That is cash balance and hybrids.

This bill lays down the rules for moving forward with these plans. It recognizes the legitimacy of the basic design. It also provides protections for older workers when a traditional plan that rewards a lifetime of hard work is converted to one of these hybrid arrangements that is designed for a more mobile workforce. I think we have done a good job of protecting participants without putting too onerous a burden on employers.

Let me emphasize that this is a prospective provision; it is not retroactive. We do not step into the legal quagmire that exists with regard to the past. I want to make it clear that this bill offers neither side an inference as to interpretation of existing rules.

Some of the provisions in this bill that provide participant protections were in a bill we introduced in the 107th Congress, a bill designed to help prevent another Enron.

We all remember Enron. Thousands of workers lost their jobs. Because their 401(k) accounts were heavily invested in company stock, these workers lost most of their retirement savings as well. In February 2002, ``60 Minutes'' did a segment called ``Who Killed Montana Power,'' about my own State's experience with employers behaving badly and havoc wreaked on employees and their savings. The story reported one worker had lost $350,000 in his 401(k) plan because of the crash of employer stock. He certainly was not alone.

This is not to say company stock is a bad investment. Sometimes it is a wonderful investment. So this bill does not prohibit investment in employer stock. It simply puts the choice where it should be--in the hands of participants who are building up their retirement savings.

To help make that decision, we give workers tools to make good decisions and understand the consequences of their actions. We require more frequent benefit statements, and we provide a safe harbor to make it easier for employers to make independent investment advice available to plan participants if they want independent investment advice.

This bill has a number of other provisions that will make it easier for a worker to move retirement plans from employer to employer or from an employer plan to an IRA. There are also provisions that make it easier to administer retirement programs.

All of us are fortunate to have the benefits of the Federal retirement system. We have good pensions. We have good retiree health benefits, and I might add the PBGC does nothing to health benefits. This legislation does nothing to health benefits. It is only pension benefits. Health benefits is something that has to be addressed clearly and solidly at a not-too-distant date.

Imagine, however, if the Government all of a sudden said: Sorry, we can't afford that retirement, all you folks in Federal Government; we are going to cut it back; you will have to learn to live on less. That would be a problem, and it is a problem for many Americans.

That is what many of America's older workers and retirees are facing. Our steel workers, our airline workers, and many others have had the rug pulled out from under them. It is no one's fault, certainly not theirs. America's companies are competing in a cutthroat world. It is important to remember that. They have problems too.

What we are trying to do today is ask everyone to be more responsible and strike the right balance. We need a system where companies put enough money aside to pay for what they promise. And we need a system where workers who carry out their part of the bargain do not have to worry that a pension was more dream than substance.

This is a tough challenge. The bill is not perfect. It is a compromise. But I believe it is a good bill and should become law. The retirement security of millions of workers deserves our attention. I urge my colleagues to support keeping promises, to support protecting workers' retirement benefits. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I understand the majority manager favors the Isakson amendment. I control time on this bill, as well as the Senator from Georgia. I support the amendment. Given all of that and the support on both sides, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of time we have on this amendment so we can then prepare to vote on the amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I see that the ranking member of the HELP Committee is now on the floor and also the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. I wonder if the Senator might allow the ranking member to speak, and then we could be at a point to bring up the amendment of the Senator from Hawaii.

Under the unanimous consent agreement, I believe we have about 30- some minutes remaining. I yield as much time as the Senator from Massachusetts desires. When the Senator finishes, I urge the Presiding Officer to recognize the Senator from Hawaii for an amendment which he has to offer.

Whatever works out for the two Senators.

No objection.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alaska for his courtesy in working out this accommodation.

I rise to speak on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill conference report that might be coming before us later on this day for a vote.

I must say I am outraged. This bill makes further cuts to critical programs that help local law enforcement

fight methamphetamine nationwide. These cuts--and they are dramatic-- have a particularly damaging impact on my State of Montana. Why? Because we are a rural State. We have very limited resources.

When I ask Montana law enforcement officers what is the No. 1 law enforcement problem they are facing, an open-ended question, they all come back with the same answer: methamphetamine. That is the biggest problem Montana law enforcement officers have.

The Byrne grant program and similar programs support most of the proactive drug enforcement in the 56 counties of my State, and I dare say that is true for a majority of States in this Nation.

Why is Byrne grant money so important? Again, it is because we are spread so thin across a vast area in Montana, a small population with an international border. An adequately funded Byrne program, particularly when combined with a high-intensity drug trafficking area, or HIDTA program, is essential. These programs are critical to help us maintain our seven multijurisdictional regional drug task forces, which have been a huge boon to successful efforts in Montana to fight methamphetamine.

Let me give an example. In eastern Montana, we have what is called the Eastern Montana Drug Task Force that is based in Miles City, MT. We also have the Tri-Agency Drug Task Force in Havre that is near the Canadian border. We have a third drug task force in our State, and that is the Big Money Drug Task Force based outside of Wolf Point. They all rely entirely on Byrne funding. These task forces also happen to cover some of the most open, most rural areas in my State where meth enforcement is particularly challenging.

This Commerce report that is soon to be before us guts the Federal Government's commitment to State and local law enforcement. It funds the Byrne grant program at just $416 million for this next fiscal year. That $416 million may sound like a lot of money, but it represents a nearly 35-percent cut over current year funding. We are cutting this law enforcement program by 35 percent.

Is that bad? That is terrible. But it is even worse because that 35- percent cut is on top of a 26-percent cut in funding in reallocation of local law enforcement resources that occurred in 2005. First we had a 26-percent cut last year. Now this is a 35-percent cut on top of the 26-percent cut.

This bill cuts the Community Oriented Policing Services, otherwise known as COPS. That is cut by one-third and provides no funding for communities to hire additional police officers.

According to the president of the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police, COPS funding is necessary to maintain an adequate number of police in the field to protect our communities. One law enforcement officer back home told me that without COPS funding, the number of crimes, especially violent crimes, begins to rise again. Currently, there is no other alternative to the COPS Program. He tells me that the COPS Program is one of those programs that works, one of those programs that is directly responsible for protecting our communities and for getting officers out on the street to protect us all. COPS works. We all know the COPS Program has worked, particularly for us in rural States.

So I ask, where are our priorities? The Senate did its job. We sent over a bill to the House that contained nearly $900 million for the Byrne program, yet somehow we will end up later today with a conference report that funds this program at close to a paltry $348 million. We had $900 million. The conference report comes back at $348 million.

Where were our Senate conferees? Why did they not stand up for the Senate version? Why did they not stand up for the Senate?

The Montana Narcotics Officers Association has told me that if the House version of the CJS bill is passed, this would gut Montana's meth enforcement abilities, especially in rural areas. They told me this would result in an elimination or a dramatic reduction in services provided by Montana's regional drug task forces.

The 26-percent cut in Byrne funding in this last fiscal year resulted in nearly a 50-percent cut in Byrne funding for the entire State of Montana, and that is because of a block grant allocation which has that result.

I frankly cannot believe we are being asked to support a conference report that has cut law enforcement, especially in the areas to fight methamphetamine enforcement, as much as we are asked to.

I am also very disappointed that this conference did something else which I think is a very bad idea. What did they do? They did not accept the Senate-passed combat meth bill. What was that? That bill would put certain methamphetamine ingredients behind pharmacy counters nationwide. We all know that the precursors of methamphetamine over the counter in drugstores are a big inducement for meth manufacturers to take these ingredients and go to local labs out in rural areas and make methamphetamine. It only makes sense that these methamphetamine precursors not be sold over the counter but only sold by prescription or at least behind the counter so there is much more control over the purchase of those ingredients. We passed that in the Senate. What did the conference do? No, they did not adopt it.

Let us look at what this conference report says with respect to rural States that are trying to fight methamphetamine. I might say it is not just rural States; it is most States trying to fight methamphetamine.

First, it did not take up and agree to the combat meth bill. The precursor provisions are not in here anymore. Willy-nilly, they are out of there. It also dramatically cut the Byrne grant money, which is so important.

I made a good part of my job in the Senate devoted to fighting methamphetamine. I have gone to a lot of these drug task force meetings. I go to many assemblies in Montana with high school and middle school students. I put on these programs that show how bad methamphetamine is. I have law enforcement officers there during these sessions with middle school and high school students. I have counselors there. We go over what has to be done to fight methamphetamine.

Again, a reminder, methamphetamine is the No. 1 law enforcement problem in the State of Montana, and I am sure that is true in a lot of other States as well.

I ask for a show of hands at these assemblies. These are schoolwide assemblies. I ask: How many of you here know of somebody who is on meth or recently on meth? Fifty to 70 percent of the students' hands go up. It is such an outrage. We talk about pandemics with the Asian flu. I might say we certainly have an epidemic with methamphetamine. In a certain sense it may be a pandemic. It is a huge problem.

If we are going to fight it--and I hear in my State of Montana, and I am sure the Presiding Officer hears the same thing in his home State of South Dakota--we need to have dollars out in the field to fight methamphetamine. There are all kinds of ways to attack this problem, but certainly dollars out in the field on the law enforcement side are absolutely critical. It is essential, and they are not in this bill.

We need a lot more prevention efforts. That is clear. We need more counseling efforts. That is clear. We need drug counseling and other ways to get people off of methamphetamine. We also need the law enforcement there to catch the bad guys who are doing it.

In a certain sense, this conference report is a huge victory for the druggies. It is a huge victory for those who are peddling methamphetamine in America because they know if there is much less law enforcement, if the dollars are not there to stop them, they have an open field. They are not dumb. The big drug manufacturers and peddlers are not stupid. They know where they can go. They know where there is law enforcement and where there is not.

When I talk to local drug task forces in my State, it is so clear to me how desperately they need these dollars. They beg me for these dollars. That is why I have offered amendments in this body to provide funding to fight methamphetamine.

We passed legislation in the Senate. We have been doing our job. But for the Senate conferees to come back with a conference report which allows all of these antimethamphetamine efforts to

be gutted and to be diluted and cut back and ask us to vote for that conference report I think is an outrage. For that reason, I strongly oppose this conference report. It is a bad idea. It is going to allow more methamphetamine in our country, one of the biggest problems this country has.

This is a victory for the drug dealers. It is a big victory for drug dealers. They know where they can deal drugs. They know where there is law enforcement and where there is not. When we start to cut back money--not status quo but cut back law enforcement dollars--that is going to be a huge problem. I very much hope this Congress finds a way to redress this imbalance, to deal with this problem so we can adequately fight methamphetamine.

I have all kinds of PSAs running in Montana, public service ads, against methamphetamine. I have been working in schools to get rid of methamphetamine. There are other people in Montana who are paying a lot of dollars out of their own pockets, with very effective antimethamphetamine ads. Part of the solution is to make sure we have adequate law enforcement. I strongly urge my colleagues to not agree to this conference report until this problem is solved.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Sheriffs' Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I reinforce a theme that has been in the Senate, working together in bipartisanship. I have thought I am one of the luckiest Senators here because the chairman is Senator Grassley, a great Senator to work with. We work very closely together. That is not rhetoric. That is true. That is accurate.

The same is also true with Senator Enzi, the chairman of the HELP Committee, and Senator Kennedy. They work very closely together. Not only do they work well together, here are two committees working well together.

A lot of Americans think there is a lot of partisanship in Washington. There is. There is too much. But there are also pockets of cooperation. We are witnessing today one of those pockets, one of those times when we are working together. I take my hat off to the chairman of the HELP Committee, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Kennedy, and the staffs. This is an effort to solve a problem in a nonpartisan way.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from New York and South Carolina. This is an appropriate way to handle this issue. Clearly China pegging their yuan to the dollar has caused immense dislocations. It is also fairly clear that a 27-percent tariff on Chinese products coming to the United States is an untenable position and it would not be the right action for the United States Congress to enact legislation which would enact a 27-percent tariff on Chinese goods coming into the United States that, in effect, is a 27-percent tax on products that American consumers would otherwise be purchasing.

Having said that, it is a problem--that is, the Chinese failure to let their currency float. They did let it float a little bit by a couple percentage points not long ago, but most all observers agree that is not enough. To some degree, this issue is tied to Chinese banking reform. Chinese financial institutions have asked the United States and other countries for advice on how to reform their system. There are too many nonperforming loans in the Chinese banking system, which is related to China's inability thus far to let its currency valuate totally freely. There will come a time--and the time is probably sooner rather than later--when this will become an issue and it will come to a head.

Right now is not the time. The Finance Committee clearly takes this issue very seriously. We in the Finance Committee will pay great attention to the degree to which this measure, the Schumer-Graham amendment, should be taken up and passed or modified before reporting it to the floor. Waiting until the end of March of next year certainly is appropriate.

I say to everyone concerned with this issue, we will act in time, and hopefully it is a time when it is an accommodation rather than a confrontation. It is up to both sides of the Pacific, frankly--China and the States--to recognize that we have to get a resolution here. We are two great countries. It is by far better for each country to gauge each other appropriately with eyes wide open. It is not appropriate for either country to sort of stiff-arm each other.

We are here. We are on the world scene. China is on the world scene. China has a huge interest, of course, in China's development but also a huge interest in the stability of the U.S. economy. And vice versa; we do, too, in China.

I urge real leadership in both countries to try to find a solid resolution so we can avoid confrontation. I again thank my friends from New York and South Carolina for their statesmanlike approach to this; namely, not pressing the issue abruptly but rather agreeing to postpone, until March 31, the next deadline.

Mr. President, I would like to turn to the bill before us. The Book of Proverbs counsels: ``Do not quarrel with a

man for no cause.'' One might rephrase that for modern times: ``Know when to take `yes' for an answer.'' That is how I feel about this tax bill before us today.

Last Tuesday, when the chairman of the Finance Committee gave notice of his intention to hold a markup on the tax reconciliation bill, I thought that we were going to have a knock-down, drug-out fight over capital gains, dividends, and the budget deficit. Now it appears that we are going to have an entirely different debate.

When Chairman Grassley first raised the issues of this tax bill with me, I told him: If you take capital gains and dividends out of the bill, I can support it. And the chairman and now the Finance Committee have taken capital gains and dividends out of the bill. And now I do support it. I am willing to take ``yes'' for an answer.

I am gratified that the chairman and the committee have chosen to forgo the capital gains and dividend provisions that they once contemplated. That is a fundamental change. And from this side of the aisle, that is a welcome change.

The job of a committee chairman is a large part of brokerage job. A committee chairman tries to do the most that he can with the votes that he has. I compliment the chairman of the Finance committee for being among the best at counting the votes. And I think that the bill that the Finance Committee brings before us today represents the moderate consensus of the Senate.

For many reasons, the bill before us today is not all that I would have preferred. It is not always the case, as with any Senator. I would have preferred that we had handled this tax cut legislation outside of the reconciliation straightjacket. I would have preferred that we had done more to address the immediate needs of the people affected by the hurricanes that ravaged the gulf States. I would have preferred that we had done more to address active financing, the provision that we have to help our companies be competitive with companies overseas. And I would have preferred that the committee would have paid for the tax cut in this bill. It is not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination that we add to the deficit rather than not adding to the deficit.

But I know that the chairman and the majority leader would have preferred that the votes had added up a little differently in other ways. That would have been their preference. I gave my preference. They, their preference. Neither of us prevailed.

There are many good things in this mark. Extension of the R&D credit is crucial for American businesses to remain competitive. The devastated Gulf States desperately need the help to rebuild that is in the mark. And I appreciate the work that was done to extend the tax provisions that we all know need to be extended. This is the business of the Finance Committee, to make sure that these extensions are extended so there is no cutoff date which causes a lot of problems for people trying to plan, trying to determine what the future is. That is also the business of the Senate.

The bill before the Senate today thus advances what we have in common. It avoids a massive quarrel.

Later, we will need to resist the fiscally irresponsible road down which the House of Representative seems headed. If the conference reports comes back to the Senate with capital gains and dividends it is, we will be back to a different bill. And will be back to the knock- down, drag-out fight we have thus far avoided.

I am pleased that we have a bill before us without capital gains and divided tax cuts it in. I am pleased that we received ``Yes'' for an answer. ``Proverbs'' is something I think we should listen to from time to time. And as a result, I look forward to fewer quarrels on this bill over the balance of the week.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. I will ask the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent it be charged to both sides.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for purposes of offering an amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.

Mr. President, I would just like to know how much time has been yielded to the Senator from Utah, as well as how much time is remaining on the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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

Mr. President, in 1882, an Irish immigrant named Marcus Daly set off an explosion that shook the world. It happened 300 feet under the ground, near Warm Springs Creek, 26 miles west of Butte, MT. When the dust settled, Daly saw before him the shiny ore of the largest copper deposit ever known.

The rich copper vein transformed the American economy. It made America the world's largest copper exporter. And it inaugurated an economic boom for my home State that lasted for decades. It also enriched many parts of America.

Thousands of immigrants made the boom happen. They came from Ireland and Italy, Canada and Scandinavia, Serbia and Croatia, Greece and Syria. They came to America to find work in the new mining town, christened Anaconda. By 1900, immigrants made up 40 percent of Anaconda's population.

These new Americans formed the backbone of the mining economy. And their descendants have woven the colorful fabric of Montana.

Immigrants helped build the American economy. In the 1850s, hundreds of

thousands of young Chinese men helped construct the Transcontinental Railroad. At the beginning in the 1870s, Basque shepherd immigrants helped shape the western ranching economy. Beginning in the 1890s, hundreds of thousands of Norwegian farmers lay the foundations of a competitive farming economy in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakota territories. And in the first decades of the 20th century, more than 100,000 Jewish immigrants created New York City's famous garment industry.

Immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators revolutionized the American economy. Scotsman industrialist Andrew Carnegie transformed the American steel industry and consolidated the Nation's railroads. Hungarian Joseph Pulitzer produced a legacy in newsprint. Polish-born producer Samuel Goldwyn left his mark on film.

Once-foreign names became American household brands. Russian-born Max Factor made makeup. Bavarian-born Levi Strauss manufactured clothes. Hessian-born Adolphus Busch brewed beer.

And today, immigrant innovators still populate the cutting edge. Moscow-born Sergey Brin helped found Google. Taiwan-born Jerry Yang founded Yahoo. French-born Pierre Omidyar founded eBay. And Hungarian- born Andy Grove founded Intel.

America remains a nation of immigrants. More than 33 million people living in America were born abroad. More than 9 million came to our shores just between 1990 and 2000.

Since colonial times, immigrants have been vital to the American economy. Their skills and their labor have made our companies, our industries, and our economy more competitive.

Some immigrants come with little more than their strength and ambition. They become our economy's machine operators, factory workers, farm laborers, and service workers.

But many come with master's and doctorate degrees. They work in research laboratories and universities. They sharpen our economy's cutting edge.

This is my seventh address to the Senate on economic competitiveness. Since summer, I have highlighted the importance to competitiveness of education, international trade, healthcare, national savings, and energy, all components we must focus on to make our country more competitive so we have better high-paying jobs and more paying jobs for more Americans. Today, I speak about immigration and economic competitiveness.

Immigrants make our economy more competitive in at least four ways.

First, immigrants provide labor. Marcus Daly needed workers to dig his Montana copper mine. Similarly, today's booming industries require global talent.

Without foreign-born workers, the largest economic expansion in our Nation's history would not have been possible. In the boom years of the 1990s, the labor force grew by nearly 17 million workers. Nearly 40 percent of them were born abroad. Most of these immigrants came when unemployment was at record lows. They filled 4 out of 10 job vacancies, often in regions short on workers, and often in jobs that natives had no desire to fill. Had these immigrants not lent us their strength, our economy would surely have faltered.

Second, immigrants help balance the budget. Tally up taxpayer-funded benefits to immigrants--education, healthcare, social security--and match those costs against what immigrants pay in State, local, Federal taxes. On balance, each immigrant provides a net benefit to the American economy of about $90,000 in taxes over a lifetime. Overall, immigrants contribute $15 billion to our economy every year.

And immigrants will make an important fiscal contribution as the baby boom generation retires. In just 5 years, the number of Americans approaching retirement will increase by nearly half. Most new foreign- born immigrants, on the other hand, are between 10 and 39 years old. And immigrants are likely to have more children than the U.S.-born population.

These younger workers will help fund the coming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit payments. Immigrants bolster the deteriorating ratio of workers to retirees. Immigrants provide a shiny vein of ore in a graying economy.

Third, immigrants push the envelope of innovation. Foreign students earn more than a quarter of the Nation's science and engineering degrees. They earn more than a third of science and engineering doctorates. Most of those are in computer sciences and electrical engineering. Foreign students account for as many as four out of five doctoral students in a number of highly-ranked universities. And foreign students bring $13 billion a year to our economy in tuition and fees.

Foreign students' minds help sharpen our economy's cutting edge. Foreign student researchers support work on new medicines, software, and other innovations. Universities patent this research. A 10 percent increase in the number of foreign graduate students would increase patents granted by more than 7 percent.

Patents mean new inventions. Inventions mean new products. And new products mean new profits and new jobs.

Just as important, nearly three-quarters of highly-skilled students stay in America. Instead of taking their skills home and using them to compete with us, they join highly specialized professions in research and academia. They contribute their knowledge to our economy.

At IBM Research and Intel, for example, foreign nationals make up about a third of high-level researchers. At the National Institutes of Health, foreign-born workers make up about half of researchers. In America's top immigration States, foreign-born workers account for 40 percent of teachers and more than a quarter of physicians, chemists, and economists.

Fourth, immigrants drive entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the irreplaceable genius that sparks economic growth. For every famous immigrant entrepreneur like Hungarian financier George Soros or Belgian designer Liz Claiborne, legions of other immigrants push the limits of the economy, or simply provide a neighborhood service.

For more than a century, immigrants have been more likely than native-born Americans to be self-employed entrepreneurs. Since the 1970s, immigrants have helped reverse a national decline in self- employment. Immigrant-run businesses create jobs, tax revenues, and growth. Even small neighborhood businesses can revitalize entire neighborhoods. And small businesses are the primary driver of new jobs.

Immigrants also swell the ranks of high-technology entrepreneurs. Most of the foreign-born scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley have helped found or run a start-up company. Sixty percent of Indian scientists there have participated in start-ups. And fully three- quarters of Indians and most of the Chinese scientists there have plans to start a business. These entrepreneurs are thinking about tomorrow's economy today.

Immigrants devote their labor. They boost our balance sheets. They drive innovation. And they energize entrepreneurship. Immigrants are vital to our economic competitiveness.

Unfortunately, America is not welcoming global talent and labor. In some cases, we have pulled in welcome mat.

State Department visa procedures and security checks intended to keep out terrorists are instead keeping out talent. In the post-September 11 world, America must vigilantly protect its borders. But we must also strike a balance between this vigilance and economic health.

Look at the case of foreign students who want to study at American universities. In 2003, foreign applications to American engineering doctoral programs fell by more than a third--with Chinese applications dropping nearly in half. Despite considerable efforts to reverse this trend, total foreign graduate school applications declined further last year, by double digits in some cases. This year, the number of international students entering American graduate schools finally held steady, despite a 5 percent drop in applications from foreign students.

The decline in applications is not an anomaly. It is a clear trend. At the same time, our economic rivals are actively attracting the world's brightest. Canada doubled its foreign student enrollment last year. And South Korea will triple its foreign student enrollment by 2010.

We unfortunately have also closed the door on talented workers who drive

our companies' competitiveness. Our leading high-tech companies-- companies like Intel, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard--are imploring Congress to raise the cap for visas for highly-skilled workers--known as H-1B visas. These visas are capped at 65,000. That limit is so out of line with demand that we reached the 2005 cap months before 2005 began.

Today's visa and immigration restrictions also make it difficult for major American companies to employ and train their workforce.

Take this example: A global American entertainment company with headquarters in New York hired Indian managers to run its Bangalore office. The company wanted to train these new hires to company standards, as it does with all employees. The company wanted to send the new hires to New York to receive this training, as it does with all management. The company applied for visas on behalf of its soon-to-be Indian office managers.

What happened? The company filed the paperwork. Months came. Months went. It took 3 months just to get an appointment at the U.S. Embassy. Delays continued. Patience wore thin. Costs mounted, with untrained managers on the payroll. And the company finally gave up.

The company applied for visas to Ireland, where the company had its European branch. The visas came in 4 days. The company trained these new managers at the company's facilities in Ireland, and then sent them back to India to work. This created jobs in Ireland, because the company set up a training program there, instead of using existing trainers in America.

This is no way to do business. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

We must lift the cap on H-1B visas. We do not have a centrally planned economy. The American Government does not tell companies how many workers they need each year. But the cap has that effect, the effect of a centrally planned economy. That is wrong. Let us listen to business leaders and help them maintain and improve their competitiveness. When our premier global companies implore us to lift the H-1B visa cap or risk hampering their growth, the time for politics is over.

We must simplify temporary entry for foreign workers who need to come to America to help our companies succeed. If we wish to remain a cutting-edge economy, we can no longer obstruct companies from training their overseas employees, participating in meetings and conferences, or traveling to trade shows. Our companies have global markets, global supply chains, and global strategies. We need a global workforce.

Our current commitment of 65,000 H-1B visas each year is outdated. It is outmoded and out of touch with today's needs. We should make a bold commitment to expand that cap. Such a commitment would allow us to lock in similar commitments from our trading partners and enhance exports and American services.

We must actively encourage talented foreign students to study, do research, and innovate at American universities and American research institutions. Visa renewals during multiyear studies need to be routine. These renewals should not require all students to first return to their home countries.

For the most exceptional of these students, who have earned advanced science degrees at American universities, we need a simpler process to obtain permanent residence. These are talented, highly educated individuals, who are in a position to keep our economy competitive. If we do not welcome them into our economy--guess what--then China, India, Europe, or Japan will welcome them into theirs.

Three weeks ago, the National Park Service designated the old mining town of Anaconda, MT, as a national historic landmark. Anaconda's mining boom times are now preserved as part of our Nation's history. But Marcus Daly's explosion--when he found all that copper ore-- continues to reverberate through the American economy today.

Let us not stamp out the spark of future booms. Let us, rather, welcome the labor, the innovation, and the entrepreneurship of our new immigrants. Let us ensure for ourselves and for our children the shining ore of boom times to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the contribution of our Armed Forces to this great Nation. It is important to reflect on the sacrifice and commitment of the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend what our Nation stands for--freedom, equality, and justice for all Americans.

Without our veterans, we would not be the free Nation that we are today.

The marines, airmen, and soldiers of Montana have always risen to the challenge by fighting overseas and protecting our homeland.

Over the past 2 weeks 700 members of the first of the 163rd infantry battalion of Montana's National Guard returned home after an 18 month deployment in Iraq and 250 troops from the first of the 189th aviation battalion will return home before the holidays.

I am extremely proud of these men and women, but I also have great concern for them.

Montana now has the highest percentage of veterans per capita in its population than any other state. We also have the highest percentage of female veterans in the country, per capita.

According to the most recent census, the veteran population in Montana is 108,476 out of an adult civilian population of 668,651. Simply put, veterans, and families of veterans, constitute a significant portion of the population in Montana.

They are our mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, and friends who are making sacrifices. I take our Nation's commitment to our veterans seriously.

Many Montanans choose to serve because of the economic situation in rural America.

There is no question that rural States are carrying a huge burden when it comes to our current conflicts abroad and these veterans deserve proper healthcare.

I am proud to say that this year the VA Hospital at Fort Harrison, Helena, MT and its outpatient clinics have been ranked as the best VA medical system in the country; however, the shortfalls that we faced in veterans healthcare funding nationwide in 2005 and 2006 are discouraging.

We still need to ensure that those who have given so much for our country are granted their due benefits, and treated with respect. Let's think big when it comes to providing for our veterans and health care.

We must fully fund the veterans' health care system and we should make spending mandatory in order to ensure that those who have given so much to our country are granted their due benefits and are treated with respect and thanks.

Let's think big when it comes to providing for our veterans and health care. We must fully fund the Veterans health care system and we should make spending mandatory in order to ensure that those who have given so much to our country are granted the benefits they deserve.

Since September 11, 2001, about 80 percent of Montana's National Guard members have been deployed to the Middle East, some of them more than once. This Monday in Great Falls, MT, members of our 341st space wing and Red Horse Squadrons from Malmstrom Air Force Base and the Air National Guard will deploy to Iraq.

When they return, they should not have to worry about getting health care and benefits.

As we welcome home our new veterans and deploy troops overseas, let us remember those who have served honorably in all wars, and pay particular attention to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken the lives of the following brave Montanans: SPC Travis Arndt, Great Falls; CPT Michael MacKinnon, Helena; PFC Andrew Bedard, Missoula; LCpl Nicholas Bloem, Bozeman; SFC Robbie McNary, Lewistown; CPL Raleigh Smith, Troy; LCpl Nathan Wood, Great Falls; SSG Aaron Honeyman, Glasgow; LCpl Kane Funke, Kalispell; CPL Dean Pratt, Stevensville; PFC Owen D. Witt, Sand Springs; 1LT Edward Saltz, Big Fork; PFC Kristofer Stoneisfer, Missoula; 1LT Josh Hyland, Missoula.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Smith a bill that would provide for the establishment of voluntary, ``health-based'' remediation guidelines for former methamphetamine laboratories, an issue of great importance to Montana, Oregon, and all of rural America.

The material and chemical byproducts of methamphetamine production pose novel risks to the environment and public health. These risks are compounded by the sheer number of meth labs and the vulnerability of police, social service workers, and children exposed to meth production. The DEA estimated that there were as many as 16,000 meth labs in operation in 2004. Additionally, thousands of meth labs have been busted over the years but never properly remediated. Producing one pound of meth leaves behind six pounds of hazardous waste. In addition to bulk waste, cooking meth infuses toxic chemicals into the walls, carpeting, and ventilation systems of the homes, apartments, motel rooms, and parks where meth is produced.

Unremediated methamphetamine labs pose significant public health risks. The Department of Health and Human Services has reported that law enforcement officials and social service workers exposed to meth labs, or even just individuals removed from meth labs, have complained of severe headaches, eye and respiratory irritations, nausea, and burns. The need for remediation guidelines is clear.

Currently, eight States, including Montana, have ``feasibility- based'' remediation standards. ``Feasibility-based'' standards consider cost as a key factor in determining what level of remediation is desirable. While such standards are a start, we need greater certainty that our public servants and children are adequately protected.

Our bill provides a remedy. It directs the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the EPA to establish voluntary remediation guidelines, based on the best available scientific knowledge. To further this effort, our bill provides for a program of research to identify methamphetamine laboratory-related chemicals of concern, assess the types and levels of exposure to chemicals of concern--including routine and accidental exposures--that may present a significant risk of adverse biological effects, and evaluate the performance of various methamphetamine laboratory cleanup and remediation techniques. Our bill does not regulate States. The remediation guidelines are purely voluntary, meant to put States, remediation consultants, homeowners, and realtors on the same page.

Methamphetamine production poisons not only users but also spouses, children, public servants, and any future owners of properties exposed to meth production. To protect the public we need consistent, scientifically-based remediation guidelines.