Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside until 5 minutes before the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will contribute to fair prices for consumers and fair treatment for pharmacies under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. I am pleased that my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, is joining me in offering this amendment. He serves with me on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and has been a stalwart in helping with some of the small pharmacist issues. That is what a large area this bill seeks to take care of.

It is an issue across the entire country. It is not just an issue in Wyoming or the West. We all have local pharmacists. Local pharmacists provide a tremendous service to the people for whom they are providers. One of those local services is to explain how the drugs are used, what their proper use is. They have an excellent knowledge of the drugs a person is taking and recognize conflicts and iron those out with the doctor. They work with the doctor to come up with some generic drugs, in some cases, to save costs. Largely, they are left out of any of the pricing mechanisms. They do all of this on a very low margin.

This bill does not take care of that part of local pharmacists, but it allows them to still be in the market. This bill ensures fair prices for consumers.

The amendment we are proposing would ensure that we hold Medicare drug plans accountable for passing on to consumers a fair portion of the rebates, the discounts, and the other incentives that the plan may receive from drug manufacturers and other sources.

Specifically, the amendment would require Medicare prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage organizations to disclose to the Federal Government the extent to which they pass those rebates and discounts on to Medicare beneficiaries.

The amendment would also clarify that the Federal Government may audit their financial statements and records to ensure compliance and deter fraud and abuse in this area.

To ensure fair treatment for pharmacies, the amendment we are offering would prohibit Medicare drug plans from implementing restrictions that would steer consumers to the mail order pharmacies. It would require the Medicare drug plans to allow local community pharmacists to fill long-term prescriptions--not just 30-day prescriptions, but 90-day prescriptions--and offer other services they are equipped and licensed to provide. It protects the rights of seniors to choose their trusted local pharmacist over a mail order house.

Our amendment would also prohibit Medicare prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage organizations from requiring pharmacies to accept

insurance risk as a condition of participation in a plan. Pharmacists and pharmacies dispense medications and provide services; they are not insurance companies.

This provision will ease the minds of the pharmacists who are concerned that Medicare drug plans might force them to share the risk. This has come to light, I am sure, to all of us in town meetings we have held, town meetings where pharmacists have shown up, town meetings where the pharmacists either have their national publication or publications from their colleges that point out some of the difficulties they are having operating in the local market, the local market where they have the actual contact with the consumer, the local market where they are the ones providing the advice, the care, and sometimes the protection of the patient. We want to make absolutely sure we do not leave them out of the mix.

This is a part of the solution that has been suggested in those college publications and those national pharmacist publications. These are local professionals who provide a local service. They do an outstanding job of helping out their customers. They understand who the customer is because they see them face to face; they are not just a voice over the telephone taking an order.

They will play an important role in any drug benefit that is passed, whether it is through a profitable situation for them--and we hope they can stay in business so we have the help of this local pharmacist--or whether it is forced on them in a nonprofitable way. They have been doing that.

It would be nice if we watched out for the small businesses in the towns across America. Small businesses are the heart of America. They are the ones that provide the community help and community services. They are the ones that participate in all kinds of community events.

We have to be careful this bill does not take them out of the loop and put them out of business so that kind of service disappears from the face of America. It is part of America. The drug stores have been the heart of downtown for years and now the heart of the health care system. They are often the main source of health care service and advice, particularly in the rural and frontier areas. In the bigger cities, there may be more contact with people who can provide information. Some of that comes through the HMOs, and some of it comes through the prescription drug managers who are often tied in with those HMOs. But they are not the ones who really do the contact with the customer, particularly in the rural and frontier areas.

I sponsored a bill to remedy our pharmacist shortage, and I am hoping that bill will come to the floor. It is a bill that helps with the forgiveness of the loans it takes to get through the process of becoming a pharmacist. We have to make sure these people are available and continue to be available in smalltown America and in the big cities. We also have to make sure there are faculty to teach these people properly to interact with the customers.

Half of the money would go to providing loan forgiveness for pharmacists who become faculty and half to forgiveness for people who actually become pharmacists in underserved areas, and underserved areas are sometimes urban areas as well. This bill does not address this. That is another bill we need to fill in the pharmacist piece. It unanimously came through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and it recognizes the need for local pharmacists and that local interface we are all used to having. Seniors and pharmacists are both concerned with how the interaction will happen. Seniors do trust their hometown pharmacist.

Senator Reed and I believe this amendment will go a long way toward answering the concerns of seniors and pharmacists about how this new Medicare drug benefit will impact the trusted relationship that pharmacists and their senior patients share.

I encourage all of my colleagues to take a closer look at this amendment and help me get it adopted. As I mentioned, it has bipartisan support. If we had a little more time, I am sure we would have had a lot more cosponsors. We recognize this is an appropriate place for this amendment to appear and an appropriate service to provide under the prescription drug benefit of Medicare.

So I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I thank them for their consideration.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments. He has very concisely laid it out, has a tremendous understanding of this amendment and the need for it, and made a fair assumption that it could cost slightly more by going through the local pharmacist. But one of the things we want to do is make sure that local pharmacist is an option.

If beneficiaries getting the prescription drugs order it through the local pharmacy and the cost comes to more than it would be through a mail order firm, then the person receiving the prescription drugs does have to make up that difference in cost.

These four provisions in the amendment will make a tremendous difference to both consumers and to pharmacists. The aim is twofold. It is to have fair prices for consumers and then fair treatment for the local pharmacies. As was mentioned, the two provisions that require fair prices would require the Medicare prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage organizations to disclose, to the extent that they pass Medicare beneficiaries, any rebates or discounts that they negotiate from drug manufacturers. In other words, if they get a break, the consumer is supposed to get a break. It permits the Government to audit the plans and the organizations' financial statements and records--and it is primarily the records that are important--to ensure compliance to make sure there is not fraud and abuse and to make sure, again, that those reductions get passed through to the consumer. So we want fair prices for consumers.

The consumers and pharmacies do support the first two provisions aimed at ensuring this transparency and accountability on the part of pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs, the companies that will probably win contracts or bids to manage the new drug benefit.

Pharmacies argue that the pharmacy benefit managers, the PBMs, are

squeezing their margins while consumers argue that the PBMs have financial incentives to steer patients to the drugs that make the most profits for the PBMs, even when they may not be the most appropriate drugs for the patients. So that is another reason that not only the fair price but the transparency has to be there.

What are these PBMs, pharmacy benefit managers? PBMs administer prescription drug benefits through contracts with employers, managed health care organizations, and insurance carriers. Today, the top 20 firms manage more than 90 percent of retail prescription drug purchases, and three firms, AdvancePCS, Express Scripts, and Merck- Medco Managed Care, dominate the market.

Large self-insured employers turned to PBMs during the 1990s to administer the popular drug benefit, to manage the costs and utilization trends to ensure appropriate use of drugs and improved quality care. However, the employer frustration over rising costs and questions about appropriateness of drug use are stimulating interest in PBM contractual relationships, especially financial arrangements with drug manufacturers, and the bearing those relationships have on the PBM performance.

PBMs once earned the bulk of their revenue by holding down drug costs for health plans. They now earn a large portion of their revenue from drug companies that pay them undisclosed rebates and other financial incentives for promoting certain medications. For nearly 4 years, the U.S. attorney's office in Philadelphia has been looking into how PBMs negotiate discounts, rebates, and payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers and how the resulting revenues are shared with PBM clients.

So what does the amendment do to answer the concerns? The amendment would give the Government the ability to ensure that the Medicare drug plans administered by PBMs are passing through the fair share of their rebates and discounts on to consumers. It would also clarify the Government's authority to audit the drug plans to confirm the accuracy of the disclosure of the rebates and discounts.

The main thrust of it is to make sure the local pharmacist has a fair shot for the service they provide. I hope everybody remembers when they go to a pharmacist the time he spends explaining how often they take the drugs and what they cannot take before or after, and what they can have with them. They also have an understanding of the other medications that people are taking so that if there is a possibility that there will be an interaction between two medications, they can solve that problem.

Of course, the only way that happens is if a person is working with one pharmacist. If people are calling a whole bunch of different pharmacists, because of privacy laws they do not have access to the interaction of the other drugs that a person is taking.

So that local pharmacist provides a tremendous service, and it is only fair that we include those professionals in the ability to compete in this market, and people can continue to place their trust in the local person that they can see face to face and from whom they can pick up their prescriptions. It is a relatively short amendment, but again it is one that has very strong bipartisan support and one that will fulfill a need. So far as we know, there is very little opposition. So I look forward to having my colleagues support it.

Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments and this opportunity to present the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, for his efforts on this bill and the efforts on all the other ones we worked on together over the years. We came to the Senate at the same time and served on the Health, Education, Pensions and Labor Committee since that time. I think we have been able to reach some reasonable solutions before, and we will have yet another one here. I appreciate his comments and his work.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the overlying amendment pending before us concerning the issue of energy derivatives. I know there is a second-degree amendment to that. I am a little disappointed there is a second-degree amendment to it. I understand why it was done. I know the Senator from California wants to separate off those people who are interested in metals derivatives from those who are interested in energy derivatives. She knows there is considerable interest on both of those parts. So this is a divide-and-conquer strategy, where later they will pick up the metals folks, thinking it will probably work better, because we debated this last year. We debated the same issue. We are back to an amendment that is slightly revised but still not good enough to make it through this body before.

We voted on this and we defeated this. One significant change is the second-degree amendment that takes the metals derivatives out of it. That is clever, but I hope the metals folks don't fall for it because they are next on the list.

The proponents of the amendment believe the trading of derivatives-- especially in the energy area--was the cause of energy problems faced by Western States in recent years. The proponents believe energy trading of derivatives by Enron contributed significantly to the energy problem. Unfortunately, the problems that caused Enron to fail were based upon failures in corporate governance and outright fraud. Chairman Greenspan has testified several times before congressional committees that derivatives did not cause the collapse of Enron.

Last year we debated the same issue and we voted it down. The issue of derivatives trading is one of the most complicated and detailed issues to come before us. I have been tempted to see how many of us could even spell derivatives, and we are being called on here to make some major judgments on the issue. If you are a derivatives dealer or a small company that uses derivatives to stabilize revenues, or you are a purchaser of derivatives, this would probably be a stimulating debate. But it is one of those detailed ones, and I think that is why I get to speak on it. It is more the accounting type of thing. Consequently, most people will not be able to understand the implications or even how it operates other than in general details, and I am including myself in that.

I must admit that as chairman of the Securities and Investment Subcommittee of the Banking Committee, I have encountered especially complex market structure orders. However, the issue of derivatives goes beyond those issues. This may have been the most complicated matter I have looked at since I have been in the Senate.

Nobody really knows what a derivative is, including myself. They are very complicated, tailored instruments, each one being unique, which explains why, from the beginning of the trading of derivatives, it has been deregulated. It has never been regulated. In very basic terms, the selling of derivatives is a way for companies that cannot afford risk to pass it on to companies that are willing to accept the risk, to buy the risk. It is a form of corporate insurance. However, beyond this simple definition, the experts should be left to structure and negotiate the instruments. I want to mention that each instrument is unique. That is why it is not traded on the stock market. However, beyond this simple definition, we do need to leave it to the professionals, the ones who understand how this works. And there are professionals out there working on it.

While the amendment before us is very similar to last year's amendment, the changes made to the amendment do not completely solve the underlying problems. In fact, the amendment may have cause for greater confusion as to the jurisdiction of derivatives between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In 2000, during the debate on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, we discussed extensively the oversight and regulation of energy derivatives. We concluded that the proper amount of oversight for a new and emerging business had been put into law. I believe we took the proper course. That law gave the Commodity

Futures Trading Commission additional powers to regulate market manipulation where appropriate.

One argument that was made over and over during the debates last year and is being made this year is that somehow the 2000 legislation exempted these derivatives and swaps from regulation. That argument is not true. They never have been regulated. In fact, Congress acted in passing the Futures Trading Practice Act in 1992 to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission specific power to exempt these derivatives and swaps as being inappropriate for regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has the job of regulating futures-- not regulating tailored swaps between sophisticated customers.

The Congress passed the Futures Trading Practice Act in 1992 that directed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to grant these exemptions. Those exemptions were granted in the previous administration, and the issue was not controversial until we started looking for a scapegoat. Nor have these swaps and derivatives ever come under Federal regulation in terms of an ongoing regulatory process.

Taxpayers take a dislike to the addition of programs to increase tax burden or regulation. This one is regulation. I am reminded of a poem from the play ``Big River'' that describes the emotions of a taxpayer. It goes:

Well you sole selling no-good

Son-of-a-shoe-fittin' firestarter

I ought to tear your no-good

Perambulatory bone frame

And nail it to your government walls

All of you, you Bureaucrats.

There is a concern across this country for bureaucrats setting up regulation, particularly regulation if it is not needed and regulation that is not understood by the regulators.

During his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last March, Chairman Greenspan reiterated it was crucially important that Congress and Federal regulators permit the derivatives market to evolve amongst professionals who are the most capable of protecting themselves far better than Congress, the Federal Reserve, CFTC, or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Unfortunately, there is a considerable downside for the Federal Government to get involved where the individual private parties are already looking at the economic events of their trading partners.

With respect to the Enron matter, there is no indication that the trading of energy derivatives contributed in any way to the collapse of Enron. Proponents of the amendment argue that Enron had such a large market share of this business that they were able to have undue influence over energy trading. However, to the contrary, during and after Enron's collapse, there were no interruptions of trading. If it had been a disaster, there would have been interruptions, but there were no interruptions of trading. The market continued.

One fear that existed in earlier debates, and still exists today, was that the CFTC did not have the regulatory power to correct abuses in trading of derivatives. However, on page 43 of the Senate companion bill, S. 3283, to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, paragraph (4)(B) gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the power to intervene and enforce any action where fraud is present.

In listening to proponents of this amendment, one would believe that Federal regulators were powerless in the energy trading markets. Not only does the power exist, but it was strengthened in the 2000 legislation by a provision written into the energy section of the bill in the House of Representatives. In paragraph (4)(C) is a provision relating to price manipulation and that grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the power to intervene in cases where price manipulation occurs.

It should be noted that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on April 9 of this year issued a ``Report on Energy Investigations,'' which details civil and criminal enforcement actions brought in energy- related markets since the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000. The powers granted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission appear more than sufficient to oversee market manipulation and, therefore, make the unwieldy regulatory scheme proposed by this amendment unnecessary.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire ``Report of the Energy Investigations'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I believe the amendment is overly broad and, if adopted, will likely decrease market liquidity because of increased legal and transactional uncertainties. Additionally, energy companies may be discouraged from using derivatives to hedge price risks, resulting in increased volatility in the energy markets. In the end, I believe this will hurt the very consumers the legislation seeks to help.

The amendment appears to grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission primary jurisdiction over energy derivatives, but if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determines that the derivative or financial instrument is not under its jurisdiction, then the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should refer the derivative or financial instrument to the appropriate Federal regulator. Unfortunately, this will create great uncertainty for market participants as to which agency's regulatory scheme the derivative would fall under.

I recently was involved in some pipeline questions and ran into the circular path of fingerpointing where each agency said the other agency and the other agency and the other agency was responsible until it pointed back to the first agency, and nobody would look at the problem. That is the kind of circular problem we are creating with this amendment.

In addition, it goes without saying that Federal agencies want to expand their jurisdiction and get bigger. It should be noted that while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeks to expand its authority to regulate these energy derivatives markets, other Federal agencies, particularly the financial regulatory agencies, believe such a regulatory scheme would be detrimental to the market.

The amendment also would subject to regulation a broad class of ``covered entities,'' including both electronic trading facilities and ``dealer markets'' that are not otherwise trading facilities. As discussed above, this definition may be too broad as to deter participants from entering the trading markets.

In addition, the amendment would permit CFTC to impose notice, reporting, price dissemination, recordkeeping, among other requirements. Not only would these requirements apply to dealer markets, but also to exemption commodity transactions on such an entity.

The secondary amendment that would exempt metals from the proposed regulatory scheme of the underlying amendment is not a good idea. Congress should be very cautious about carve-outs without fully understanding the implications. With regard to metals, Congress may start down a slippery slope where this initial carve-out is for the metals industry and then move on to other industries. I believe we need to explore this in the committees before having it considered on the floor. Therefore, I urge Members to resist the free vote without knowing all the consequences.

Letters were recently sent to the Senate Energy Committee by the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and the New York Mercantile Exchange opposing legislation introduced this Congress that is very similar to the amendment before us.

Various other groups have been outspoken about this amendment, including the National Mining Association, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, and the Bond Market Association, just to name a few. In addition, during last year's debate on the Energy bill, the President's working group, comprised of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, the Chairman of the SEC, the Chairman of the CFTC, opposed a similar amendment and we defeated it. Individually, the Chairman of the CFTC and the then-Chairman of the SEC sent letters directly to me opposing the energy derivative amendment.

On the overall topic of derivatives, Chairman Greenspan stated:

Although the benefits and costs of derivatives remain the

subject of spirited debate, the performance of the economy

and the financial system in recent years suggests that these

benefits have materially exceeded the costs.

If the proponents of this amendment are attempting to remedy the problems caused by Enron, I do not believe this amendment will make a difference to prevent future Enrons. However, if last year's Sarbanes- Oxley Act had been in place sooner, then the corporate governance requirements of the act may have served as an early warning system to Enron's audit committee and have covered the fraudulent activities early in the process.

What I am saying is, we corrected the fraudulent problem. I am very concerned that if we adopt this amendment, we may fundamentally change the emerging derivatives market. Once the structure is in place, it may place such a burden on the market participants that it may not be worthwhile to pursue. In addition, the amendment may have caused unintentional confusion as to which regulator may or may not oversee individual participants or components of the marketplace. Before we make any fundamental change, we should, at a minimum, try to understand the ramifications first.

I am afraid this amendment might fit under the congressional precept that if it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting to, and that is something we have to avoid if we want to make sure that the markets continue to exist. Like Chairman Greenspan, I believe the derivative trading, even in the energy derivative area, has been extremely beneficial to our economy and I hope we continue it.

I request that Members vote against the overlying amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Jack Gerard of NMA be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I do want to point out we debated this issue a year ago. The conclusion was these are professionals dealing with professionals. The people who have the oversight over it do have oversight and are taking advantage of that oversight.

We also passed Sarbanes-Oxley in the meantime. And if the Feinstein amendment were to be adopted, it would lead to some confusion over exactly who has jurisdiction.

I know this is an extremely difficult issue. This is my third time debating it. I do know how to spell it now. But it is a very complicated issue, and it is not something we ought to be doing in a reaction that will result in overreaction. So I ask that we vote against this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Greg Dean of my office be given floor privileges during the debate on the Energy Bill.

Mr. President, walking--climbing the stairs--reaching for an object or a needed item on a shelf. They're all things we do and take for granted every day. But for many of our nation's elderly, they are a constant source of anxiety and apprehension.

Anyone who has an elderly parent, relative or friend who lives alone knows the concern that is often raised when a phone call placed to them goes unanswered. Our first and immediate reaction is often worry because we know that for many of our nation's elderly, a fall can produce a very serious injury. As the phone continues to ring we wonder if Mom is upstairs and can't hear the phone, or Dad is in his workshop, or our friend has just stepped outside to catch a breath of fresh air.

We hang up, wait a few minutes and place our call again, often with a greater sense of urgency.

This time, our concern becomes worry as we picture our loved one suffering from the effects of a fall, alone, with no one to help them.

Then, when the phone is answered, a huge rush of relief overcomes us as we realize our fears were misplaced.

Would that every story like that have such a happy ending. For too many of our Nation's elderly, however, it sometimes ends tragically as brittle bones and a reduction in our sense of balance becomes a formula for serious injury and a dramatic reduction in one's quality of life.

Although the physical healing process after a fall can be long and traumatic, it often pales in comparison to the psychological effects of a loss of confidence--and therefore activity--of an elderly individual who no longer takes for granted his or her ability to walk and safely navigate their world without assistance or support.

Fortunately, there are things that can be done to both reduce the number of these tragic falls and restore the confidence of our loved ones in their ability to once again lead a normal life.

In an effort to address this issue I am introducing legislation, together with my distinguished colleague form Maryland, Senator Mikulski, that would take a multi-faceted approach to solving this problem. The Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003 will look at every aspect of this matter, from educating the elderly about how to ``fall- proof'' their home, to researching the causes of most falls and trying to find ways both to avoid them and to provide better treatment to those who are recovering from them.

In today's world, when so many of us are living longer, it is quite commonplace to hear of elderly friends and relatives who have fallen and faced the challenge of recovering from a broken bone. Almost all of us have had that experience, either with family or friends.

What is less well know is that 25 percent of the elderly who sustain a hip fracture die within one year. On an annual basis, 40,000 people over age 65

visit emergency departments with traumatic brain injuries suffered as a result of a fall; 16,000 of those people are hospitalized, and 4,000 die. By the year 2030, as the baby boomer generation is added to the ranks of the elderly, the number of people over age 65 will double, potentially doubling the current elder fall injury statistics.

There are also significant costs associated with such a large volume of fall-related injuries among our nation's senior citizens. Direct costs to the Medicaid and Medicare programs alone will exceed an estimated $32 billion in the year 2020.

The Elder Fall Prevention Act of 2003 takes a three-pronged approach to this problem. It will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop public education on fall prevention for the elderly, family members, caregivers, and others involved with the elderly. It further calls for an expansion of research on effective approaches to fall prevention and treatment. Finally, the Elder Fall Prevention Act requires an evaluation of the effect of falls on the costs of Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the potential for reducing those costs through education, prevention and early intervention.

A wide variety of groups support this legislation, including the National Safety Council, the Emergency Nurses Association, the Assisted Living Federation of America, the American Geriatrics Society, the Brain Injury Association, the American Health Care Association, and many more. All of these groups should and will be partners in this comprehensive effort to address one of the leading causes of death and disability in the elderly.

The largest generation in our nation's history is rapidly approaching retirement. Passing this bill into law will mean a better quality of life for them and for all our nation's elderly. It will also help us reduce the cost of the Medicaid and Medicare programs for all Americans.

I am looking forward to working on this bill in Committee and sending it on to the Senate floor for a vote. The sooner we act the sooner we can begin to work to prevent falls and help our nation's elderly live safely and in better health.

Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the proper course of treatment for it.

Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to the same facility for radiation therapy.

In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or in the case of cancer, to survive.

But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a few weeks getting some on the job training.

Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a system that allowed such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present state of our health care system.

But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of legislation I am introducing today.

The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their profession enjoys in the public eye.

It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise of the professionals who assist in administering them.

Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not regulate or register radiologic personnel.

To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.

The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.

The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access to quality information so that patients receive the best health care possible.

This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in the United States.

When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of competence of those who are providing us with the services we so desperately require for the maintenance of our health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who have not.

More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our healthcare system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution in information technology has been its effect on education. With the information superhighway and the number of online research and information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher education have become inseparable.

The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been excluded from attending institutions of higher education.

Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.

Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.

At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse.

The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally passed.

My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already established in current law, institutions interested in becoming eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a system of assurances that the student participating in the program is the individual completing the work.

It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, through technology, to reach student populations that have been excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non- traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education available to everyone with

the interest in learning and the determination to get the job done. The Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003 will provide a hand up--not a hand out--to those whose interest in a higher education is limited only by their resources. By offering them a helping hand we can eliminate that obstacle and help a new generation achieve their goals and live their dreams.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, imagine for a moment you have gone to the doctor to have a medical condition evaluated. Uncertain as to what your injury may be, your doctor sends you to a specialist for a medical imaging examination to determine the extent of your injury and the proper course of treatment for it.

Or, imagine, having heard the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, going to the same facility for radiation therapy.

In either case, our sense of concern and anxiety about our medical condition will serve to focus our attention on ourselves, and not on the caregivers providing us with the treatment we need to recover, or in the case of cancer, to survive.

But, what would you say if you knew that the individual helping to direct your diagnosis or the one providing your course of treatment is someone who has done nothing more to earn his credentials than spend a few weeks getting some on the job training.

Imagine how you would feel and the level of trust you would have in a system that allowed such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately, that's an all too common occurrence with the present state of our health care system.

But, it is a problem that we can solve with the passage of legislation I am introducing today.

The Consumer Assurance of Radiological Excellence, RadCARE, Act will ensure that there are coherent standards in place for those who plan and deliver radiation therapy treatments. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as well as Senators Daschle, Lautenberg, and Dorgan, in this effort, which will bring peace of mind and restore the confidence of the health consumer in the treatment they receive from those who perform radiologic procedures. It will also increase awareness of the skills of these health care professionals and raise the level of visibility their profession enjoys in the public eye.

It is important that we establish standards for personnel who perform radiologic procedures because physicians depend upon medical imaging examinations to diagnose disease and identify and treat injuries of all kinds. The quality of a radiologic procedure hinges upon the expertise of the professionals who assist in administering them.

Currently, 15 States as well as the District of Columbia do not regulate or register radiologic personnel.

To address that lack of attention, the RadCARE Act will strengthen the Consumer-Patient Radiation Health and Safety Act of 1981. The current law calls for States to establish voluntarily a set of educational and credentialing standards for radiologic and medical imaging personnel. Yet many States still do not have licensing laws in place that meet the standards recommended by the Federal Government. The RadCARE Act will require that radiologic and medical imaging personnel meet a minimum credentialing standard.

The RadCARE Act will not affect states that have a suitable licensing system or those that have mandated higher standards than required by Federal law. If a state has no meaningful

regulations or licensing system, however, then the Federal standards will apply. The RadCARE Act also has a provision to ensure access to quality healthcare in rural regions where a one-size-fits all approach may not be applicable. Enforcement of the RadCARE Act would be achieved by restricting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to facilities that employ personnel who meet the minimal federal standards.

The RedCARE Act will improve the safety of radiological procedures by reducing the risk of harmful overexposure to radiation. Healthcare costs will also be lowered by decreasing the number of repeated procedures due to personnel error. Additionally, the RadCARE Act will enable radiologists and other healthcare professionals to have access to quality information so that patients receive the best health care possible.

This legislation is supported by a variety of organizations concerned with the quality of these procedures, including the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the Society of Nuclear Medicine Technologist Section, the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists, the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board, the Association of Vascular and Interventional Radiographers, and the other members of the Alliance for Quality Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy, which represents the more than 275,000 medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in the United States.

When it comes right down to it, it's a big enough battle to fight the cancers or the injuries to our bodies that require such invasive treatments or diagnosis. We shouldn't have to worry about the level of competence of those who are providing us with the services we so desperately require for the maintenance of our health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this much needed legislation. It respects the power of the states who have addressed this problem as it provides minimum standards for those who have not.

More importantly, its enactment into law will do a great deal to increase the level of confidence of the American health consumer in our healthcare system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one of the great benefits of the revolution in information technology has been its effect on education. With the information superhighway and the number of online research and information sources it has made available, modern technology and higher education have become inseparable.

The notion of distance learning and the access it provides to students--especially those in rural areas--could use a little more support, however, so that is why I am introducing the Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003.

This legislation builds on principles already found in the Higher Education Act to help reach populations that have traditionally been excluded from attending institutions of higher education.

Wyoming is a very rural State. There is only one four year school in the entire State, and there are only seven community colleges. If you include the University of Wyoming's satellite campuses, that adds up to nine institutions of higher education in an area of nearly one hundred thousand square miles. By contrast, there are one hundred twenty nine institutions of higher education in the State of Massachusetts, which makes up an area roughly one tenth the size of Wyoming. In fact, the only State that has fewer institutions of higher education is Alaska.

Expanding access to higher education for our rural communities has been a challenge for many years. Now, the Internet has made it possible for prospective students in rural communities, far removed from the university campus, to attend college online. They may now spend their time studying, rather than commuting back and forth between school.

At present, the most significant barriers that distance learners and online education programs must face are those that were created by the Higher Education Act. Under current law, students attending institutions that enroll more than half of their students in distance programs are ineligible for Federal student financial assistance. As a result, many of the communities that this assistance is designed to reach have been excluded from sharing in its benefits, including students from rural communities, single mothers, working professionals, and a range of others who are interested in attending college but who cannot afford to do so.

The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem by creating an avenue for online and distance educators to reach out to rural communities and non-traditional students by making them eligible for federal student assistance. It creates an eligibility standard for these institutions that helps to ensure they will provide high quality education programs, while it also protects Federal funding from fraud and abuse.

The Distance Learning and Online Education Act ensures students will receive a high quality education by requiring online educators to become accredited by an agency that has an appropriate focus on distance education. As provided under current law, the accrediting body must also be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an agency that can determine the institution's eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This is a slightly higher standard than is expected of the brick and mortar institutions that have been entrusted with Title IV funding since the Higher Education Act was originally passed.

My bill will also protect against any fraud and abuse of Title VI funds by requiring distance educators to demonstrate their financial responsibility. In addition to meeting the default rates already established in current law, institutions interested in becoming eligible must also have a record free from audit findings or program review findings resulting in significant penalties for a period of at least two years. Distance learning institutions must also show that they have not had their participation in Title IV limited, suspended or terminated during the previous five years, and they must create a system of assurances that the student participating in the program is the individual completing the work.

It is clear that the shape of higher education in this country is changing and it will never be the same again. We have an opportunity, through technology, to reach student populations that have been excluded from participation in higher education because they cannot afford to attend or travel to classrooms or campuses located many miles from their homes. We can change part of the equation by changing the way we view those programs that hold the greatest promise for non- traditional students. Making them eligible for federal student assistance will go a long way toward making a higher education available to everyone with

the interest in learning and the determination to get the job done. The Distance Learning and Online Education Act of 2003 will provide a hand up--not a hand out--to those whose interest in a higher education is limited only by their resources. By offering them a helping hand we can eliminate that obstacle and help a new generation achieve their goals and live their dreams.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there is no question that the goals of the Endangered Species Act are noble. Wyoming residents understand the desire to maintain a healthy environment and to manage and protect wildlife. In fact, it is a business we have been in for generations. The fact that today's private lands are the primary habitat for a more abundant range of wildlife than can be found on Federal public lands is a strong testament to my Wyoming's residents' belief in protecting wildlife and their willingness to put those beliefs in action.

It was the State of Wyoming, not the Federal Government, that took action to find the believed extinct black-footed ferret. The State then used its own

money to build a facility that was able to nurse the ferret back into existence. As a result of the State's unilateral efforts we now have several populations of black-footed ferrets spread across several States.

Unfortunately, the ESA has moved beyond its goals of recovery species and had become a tool to control development, to shut down small businesses, and to impose costs--in the form of unfunded mandates--on States, local governments and private individuals.

Then there are those other costs, the ones that can't be put into exact dollar figures but which seem to drain the already limited resources of private land owners. Whether it is the grizzly bear, black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, gray wolf, whooping crane, bald eagle, western snowy plover, sage grouse, Wyoming toad, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Colorado butterfly plant, or a flower called the Ute Ladies' tresses, Wyoming residents have been forced to invest valuable man hours and personal property to ensure these plants, fish and animals are managed according to national priorities as set by non-resident Federal agencies.

It is only fair that Federal dollars be provided to pay for Federal priorities.

Imagine, as a home owner, that an endangered species is discovered in your yard. What if you were then denied the use of your garden, back yard and driveway, couldn't mow or pull any weeds and were told, oh, yes, you have to change jobs too. You'd be on the phone to your lawyer, your governor, your Senator and the President. And all of them would say, ``It's the law and you are not entitled to a dime of compensation.'' Now how would you feel about the Endangered Species Act?

Granted, a farm or ranch is larger than your garden or back yard, but it is often the sole source of support for some of our Nation's hardworking families--and to have acres taken away and out of use without compensation would appear to violate the Constitution! My bill merely provides for just compensation for this, a Federal priority and mandate.

My bill would guarantee funding for implementing the ESA while requiring the Federal Government to pay for all the costs relating to the establishment of State management plans, monitoring, consultation and administration, surveys, conservation agreements, land acquisitions, losses from predation, losses in value to real or personal property or any other cost imposed for mitigating management of a species covered by the ESA.

When they see the real costs of these regulations and their impact on communities, the American public will, for the first time, realize what it costs to declare a species as endangered. It's one thing to dictate how someone else or another community spends its resources, and it's quite another to face those costs and lost opportunities yourself.

There should be no question in anyone's mind that the Endangered Species Act is an unfunded mandate. For far too many years states, local governments and individual property owners have borne the brunt of implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. They stagger beneath the momentous weight of having to pay for the mismanagement and policy decisions of federal bureaucracies.

One of the biggest problems with this statute is that the people forcing implementation have no real perspective on what it does or how it impacts states and local communities. It is very easy for them to sit back in their protected communities, surrounded by granite walls and pavement, and dictate to the West that our herds of cows and flocks of sheep are needed to feed the wolves they transplanted here, or that species preservation is more important than providing jobs for the community and putting food on the table. It's easy for them because they don't have to live with the results of their decisions. It doesn't cost them anything and they have nothing to lose. The only investment most Americans make in the Endangered Species Act is rhetoric.

I love Wyoming and the plants and animals that populate it. I would hate to see anything happen that would change the ability of Wyoming and individuals to continue managing its land with the kind of productivity that we now have.

The reality is, however, that the Endangered Species Act has become more of a hindrance than a help. Not one species has been recovered because of the rules and regulations imposed by this statute. What has had the biggest impact has been the people on the ground who are not allowed to make personal choices on how they manage their own property. If we continue to impose the costs and expenses on local landowners and communities, there will come a day when they are no longer there to make the wise and well informed management decisions that will make a real difference in the future existence of our Nation's endangered species.

I hope my colleagues will consider this bill and the costs it puts on individuals and recognize that the Endangered Species Act is a Federal priority and, as such, it should be a Federal cost, not a personal cost.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I want to give everyone a bit of the philosophy developed in the House that my colleagues have not had the opportunity to observe. There are numbers very important in this debate.

The United States has had a tremendous commitment. The United States will continue to have a tremendous commitment. What we are trying to do is make sure the other countries also join in this commitment and that it does not become solely a U.S. fund.

This chart shows that the United States has maintained its commitment to the global fund. We have pledged $200 million a year. Here is what is happening with the other countries: They started at 275. By 2006, they dropped off to a little bit above zero. By 2008, they hit zero. That is what the commitment is at the present time.

This chart shows how the fund is shaping up at the moment. The United States is putting in 51 percent of the money, not 33 percent of the money--51 percent of the money.

Some of the numbers you have heard go back to 2001, 2002, and 2003 when we had a higher commitment, but the other countries had a higher commitment. They were almost at $150 million. That has been dropping off steadily.

When we get into the pledges, it drops off considerably faster. We have to do something to get the other countries energized to still be a part of this. This should not be, cannot be, and will not work if it is just U.S. funds.

This chart shows the way that it shapes up with the bill, the way the House brought it out. We will be providing 42 percent, then 60 percent, then 96 percent, then 99.5 percent, and then 100 percent of the fund if this amendment is not defeated. I do not think we ever intended to be 100 percent of the entire world solution to this problem, and we are not doing our job with the rest of the world if we become 100 percent of the solution. It is participation by the countries that is extremely important.

The global fund administrator supports the leveraging efforts. He recognizes what is happening with those pledges and what is happening with the rest of the world. He says:

I hope and expect that the U.S. will continue to ensure

that its contribution represents a ``fair share'' relative to

the total commitments to the fund, potentially through a

``challenge grant''--

And that is the way it is written coming out of the House. It is saying that we will put up money to encourage others, and as they reach their goals on the pledges, we will increase ours. We are setting aside an extra $1 billion to do that.

. . . potentially through a ``challenge grant'' mechanism

as we await the new and renewed pledges of other donors.

We have the support of the administrator of the global fund. We at present are exceeding what we envisioned doing in that fund. We know it is extremely important. The only way that it works is if we have the involvement from all of the countries or at least more of the countries than we have at the present time.

The intent of the global fund was to be a global multilateral response to these epidemics. Thus far, the United States has clearly shown its commitment to this issue, and we are asking others to contribute to this necessary cause. The global fund cannot become an ``us'' or a U.S.-only fund. If it is to be successful, other countries have to be a part of the contributions.

I ask my colleagues to join in defeating this amendment so that we keep that challenge grant commitment there. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to get away from the rhetoric about what the President can and cannot do, let's go back to the amendment. The purpose of the bill we are looking at now is to make sure we are providing a challenge grant for the world. That is what we have been asked to do. That is what the President wants to take to the G-8. That is what we need to do right now. We do not need to put out a promise that we are going to have $500 million immediately. The up to $1 billion--that is still a big number for me. I have trouble saying it. The promise of up to $1 billion is if there is a match by the others. If they match, we give. The House agreed to that. We will agree to it. But to put in another number there to show we are willing to go even further than any other country in the world and maybe even be willing to fund the fund 100 percent is not a good idea at this point.

What we need to do is follow what the House did, make sure there is an assurance there that the President can take. We do not need to try and outbid the rest of the world when they are not even bidding. When you go to an auction sale, you do not drive up your own bid. That is what we are doing, is an auction sale. We are trying to provide a little bit of psychology to get everybody to participate so they will have more concern even in their own country. So let's not bid against ourselves. Let's defeat this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill without amendment.

Why am I speaking on this subject? Why I am so committed to the swift passage of this bipartisan global AIDS bill? No one in my family and none of my close friends has AIDS. Nor have I traveled to Africa to care for people suffering from AIDS, as has our distinguished majority leader, Dr. Frist.

Well, I am speaking on this subject for one reason and one reason only: I believe that passing this bill as soon as possible is the right thing to do. We have a responsibility to fulfill--and an opportunity we cannot squander.

Millions of people are dying needlessly. We have the ability to make an investment that will save millions of lives and give hope and security to millions more. Doing nothing is not an option.

We live in a highly interconnected world. Today more than ever, creating a more peaceful and secure environment for the people of one region translates into more peace and security for people around the globe. By increasing our commitment to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean, we also will be helping our nation and the rest of the international community. The world awaits our response.

As the cries for help from Africa increase, and the world watches to see what we will do, President Bush has challenged the Congress to provide the assistance that would begin to rid the world of this deadly menace.

If we pass this bill, we will provide the people of Africa with hope for a better and more secure future. If we do not, history will not soon forgive--or forget--that a nation blessed with all the resources we have at our disposal failed to act when we heard the cries of the people of Africa.

Let me remind my colleagues what the President has challenged us to do. He asked us to send him a bill that would prevent 7 million new infections--or 60 percent of the projected new infections in the target countries. He asked for a bill that would treat 2 million HIV-infected people in the target countries--as opposed to fewer than 100,000 today--using the latest advances in drug therapy. He also asked for a bill that would provide care and comfort for 10 million HIV-infected people and AIDS orphans.

The bill before us today would do all of these things. It represents the first global effort to provide advanced anti-retroviral treatment on such a large scale in the poorest and most afflicted countries. This bill also would make the successful Ugandan model of prevention--in other words, putting abstinence first--the basis of our global prevention strategy.

The bill would require accountability and transparency from both the Global Fund and our bilateral efforts. The recent GAO report on the Global fund raises some legitimate concerns about how this 16-month-old organization manages its contributions and monitors its projects. The bill before us would mandate careful scrutiny of and accounting for how the Global Fund spends the contributions it receives.

In short, this bill both reflects American values and recognizes that we need the active involvement of all countries in the struggle against AIDS. It also reflects a bipartisan compromise. This bill passed the House 375 to 41, with only 1 Democrat in opposition.

Now I realize that no one is completely satisfied with this bill. I have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might prefer to change one section or another to make it a better bill. However, we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We don't have time to let the legislative process drag on while people around the world are dying--waiting for us to act. Time is not on our side--or theirs!

I know many of my colleagues strongly support the Global Fund. President Bush supports the Global Fund too. In fact, his Secretary of

Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is the fund's new chairman.

The President has pledged to continue our commitment to the Global Fund even as he proposes expanding and targeting our bilateral country- to-country initiatives to fight AIDS. By providing both bilateral and multilateral funding, this bill doesn't pin all of our hopes--or our taxpayers' money--on any one approach to addressing this crisis.

If you support the Global Fund, you know that the Senate's delay would mean a missed opportunity to increase the international commitment to fighting AIDS globally.

The United States is the single largest donor to the Global Fund. As of April 1, the United States had pledged nearly half of the $3.37 billion in total pledges to the Global Fund. We have already appropriated $650 million to the Global Fund, and we have pledged an additional $1 billion over the next 5 years.

We are already doing more than our fair share for the Global Fund. What we need to do now is to encourage the rest of the international community to step up to the plate.

President Bush is traveling to France next month for the G-8 Summit. This summit is a meeting of the political leaders of the world's largest economies. When would there be a better time to encourage other countries to increase their own contributions to the Global Fund?

If you are concerned with the future viability of the Global Fund, you also should be concerned about passing this bill now. Our swift action will demonstrate our commitment to seeing this battle through. It will also give the President a great tool with which to leverage additional funding from other nations.

On the other hand, amending this bill will result in a lengthy conference with the House. If we don't get this bill to the President until the summer, we will miss a golden opportunity to encourage more financial support for the Global Fund from the G-8 members. If we don't finish action on this bill until the fall, then the State Department will have lost the time it will need to get ready for the coming year's appropriations for our expanded bilateral AIDS initiatives.

Clearly, these are not artificial timelines. Even less artificial are the timelines that AIDS places on a person's life and a family's future.

In the 3 months since President Bush announced his emergency plan, nearly 800,000 people have died from AIDS. In those 3 months, 1.2 million people have been infected with HIV, and more than 175,000 babies have been born with the virus. Every day we spend debating this bill on the Senate floor or in a conference with the House means more lives lost--lives that could have been saved had we acted sooner.

Our Founding Fathers were never more inspirational than when they wrote that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights-- and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Swift passage of this bill will again show the world that these aren't just words on a piece of paper. Swift passage will again show that these words apply to every citizen of every country--not just our own.

In Africa and the Caribbean, the scourge of AIDS is robbing people of their natural rights. We know the thief is a virus. We also know how we can stop this thief from stealing the lives of people--from stealing fathers and mothers from their children. But with this knowledge comes an obligation to use it.

For so long we could only treat the symptoms of AIDS and provide comfort to the dying. Today, we have the ability to fight back against HIV itself. Today we have medicines that can effectively halt the evolution of HIV and help people live a normal life. In other words, we have the technology and the know-how to stop AIDS from killing people, destroying families, and destabilizing societies.

By sending this legislation to the President, we will save the lives of millions of people and liberate them from the tyranny of AIDS. And we will demonstrate, once again, that we are a principled nation that leads through actions, not words.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan bill and send it without amendment to the President.

Mr. President, I congratulate everybody who was involved in the bill. This was not easy work. There were a lot of different personalities and opinions. It is a huge issue with a lot of detail. There is a lot of room for error and misunderstandings and different amendments.

I am so pleased that people on both sides of the aisle worked through all the difficulties, both ends of the building worked through all the difficulties, and that we arrived at this position.

I particularly congratulate the majority leader for the outstanding job he has done through all the years he has worked on AIDS. This would not have come to our attention and a vote tonight if it had not been for the diligence of Senator Frist.

I also thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for all the work he has done on the bill. He has been through more variations of this bill than almost anybody, except Senator Frist, and was willing to find a position that would get this bill passed. He did that in the best kind of spirit and took some stands against a bill that had his name on it. That is very difficult work for a Senator to do, and he did it in the best spirit of making sure we were taking care of the work.

It is one of the more universal bills we have done since I have been in the Senate.

I congratulate everyone for coming together and finishing this bill.

Mr. President, once again we have a challenging task before us. We have to draw a road map that will lead to economic growth, development, and future sustainability. We have to come up with a package that is fair to all taxpayers. One that eliminates complexity instead of creating more of it. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done. So far, we have all been talking about it. In fact, as I have listened to my colleagues speak throughout the day, I have been struck by the unusual tenor of this debate. We have Democrats claiming they want to eliminate tax increases and Republicans saying we need to use tax increases to offset other provisions. While I have serious reservations about voting for a package that appears to rob Peter to pay Paul, I believe the Finance Committee has crafted a bill that will lead to the creation of new jobs. And, that is what this debate should be about.

In April, the number of unemployed people in this country rose to 8.8 million--8.8 million. That is 8.8 million Americans without jobs and without paychecks--but still with plenty of bills to pay. That kind of economic chaos sends ripples throughout the economy. It affects more and more people until we do something to stop it. Until we take action to stem and control the problem so that the economy can regain its strength.

The strength of our economy lies in our workforce, so we have to put into place a plan for growth that will actually encourage the creation of new jobs. I think this plan is a good step toward that goal, and I believe the tax relief provided in this plan will put money back into the pockets of taxpayers and provide much needed resources for businesses to draw on in order to create more jobs for those who need them.

That is what I would like to talk about for a moment--the employers, the small business owners, the entrepreneurs. I am a strong supporter of the President's dividend proposal, and I am extremely disappointed we have been forced to reduce it in the Senate. I would hope we could eventually reach an agreement here and with our colleagues in the House to restore that proposal.

Nearly every week, I go back to Wyoming, and small business owners and local residents from around my State want to talk about the unfairness of our tax policy when it comes to the double taxation of dividends. In fact, I have a stack of over 300 letters from constituents representing different age groups and different income levels supporting the full elimination of the double taxation on dividends.

Although some of my colleagues continue to misrepresent to the American people that this provision would only help the rich, I think it is important to remind everyone that families, single people, married couples, college students, working mothers, single dads, senior citizens, and everybody in between are all unfairly burdened by the loss of spendable cash that results from the double taxation of dividends. We should not be surprised by that. After all, it is not just corporate executives who receive dividends.

If we eliminate the double taxation on dividends we will put money back into the pockets of hardworking taxpayers, and we will also create jobs for working Americans across the country. Studies have shown that the President's dividend proposal could create as many as 400,000 new jobs. That would provide enough jobs for over four-fifths of Wyoming's population. That is a lot of jobs.

I would prefer we pass a dividend proposal that completely eliminates this unfair double taxation, but I understand why my colleagues on the Finance Committee had to come up with a new dividend plan. They were faced with a tough problem--staying within the budgetary constraints set forth by Congress while still providing real, economic growth. I believe they came up with a workable compromise that will provide some, if not all, of the relief necessary to encourage short and long-term investment by individuals and corporations. Under this plan, individuals will have more money to reinvest in their portfolio, and companies will be more likely to use equity financing to fund future growth.

Other important components of this bill are the small business and agricultural provisions, as well as the section that will increase the allowable amount for small business expensing from $25,000 to $75,000. Small business is truly the backbone of our economy, the engine that makes it go, and we have to create an environment that encourages rather than discourages growth. As corporations struggle to meet income projections and cost reductions, small businesses are the ones providing jobs and putting food on the tables for our working families.

As many as 22.4 million small businesses could directly benefit from provisions like the increase in small business expensing. Other employers will benefit from provisions like the repeal of the Special Occupational Tax and the extension of the applicable period for a taxpayer to replace livestock sold on account of drought, flood, or other weather-related conditions. These provisions mean thousands and thousands of employers will have more money to reinvest in their company, hire more people, and create more jobs. That means putting more Americans back to work.

This package should be about jobs; and I support the tax relief provisions, because I think they will create the jobs that will increase the flow of revenues that will bring this economy out of its current slump.

However, I want to make it clear that I am concerned about the high number of revenue provisions that are included in the bill. An economic growth package should not simply shift the tax burden from one person to another. That is not the way to create a more fair tax system. Despite my concerns, I will vote for this package because we need an economic growth package now. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this plan to put more Americans back to work and help our families get back on their feet again.

Mr. President, I have also asked for some time to speak to introduce a bill.

I ask unanimous consent that during the period for morning business, the following Members be recognized to speak: Senator Enzi for 20 minutes, Senator Stabenow for 10 minutes, Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes.

I further ask consent that following those speakers, the Senate resume consideration of the energy bill.

Mr. President, we are having a crisis in the West. Actually, we are having a crisis anywhere that there are people who raise livestock. The crisis comes about as a result of neither fair trade nor free trade--in fact, the elimination of both. This bill is designed to make a correction in that. It is a clarification. I do not think the clarification would be necessary if enforcement were done, but this bill will clearly set out that a part of the problem can be solved.

Part of the crisis that particularly the small farmers and ranchers who raise livestock have is the drought we are having in the West. We are in the fourth year of a drought right now. That is resulting in a lot of for sale and auction signs going up on ranches. This is partly because they are not getting the proper price for their product. It is a controlled market; it is not a free market.

To bring it to a level that more people would understand, imagine trying to sell a house where the U.S. tradition might have changed so that everybody worked through a realtor, or at least 80 percent of the people worked through a realtor, and the realtor did not really show the house to other people. The realtor bought the house and then put it on the market themselves. The realtor had the capability to set the market price because of the other houses they owned.

That is what is happening with captive supply. There are a lot of technicalities to it. I sincerely hope my colleagues will take a look at it and understand it a little bit. It is very difficult. It is very detailed. It is very complicated to understand, but it is very important to understand. It is important to understand on behalf of the ranchers and consumers.

Now, one would think that if the price were being driven down for the rancher, those of us buying meat at the supermarket would get it for less. But if one tracks the price the ranchers are getting and the price the consumers are paying when the price goes down for the rancher, everything stays level for the consumer. So where is the money going? It is staying in the middle somewhere. We know where it is staying, and we know why it is staying, and it is control of the market. We do not usually allow that in the United States, but in this instance we allow it.

So 80 percent of the market is controlled by four packers, and they set the price. They set it in a way that the rancher has no control over it whatsoever. So the ones suffering this drought and suffering all the risk are the ones receiving the least money from the entire process. We do not believe in that in America. My bill is designed to change that.

Packers who practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the current law, but this law is not being enforced. What we are left with is unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced, and the cost to enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time consuming, today I propose the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays attention to the sign unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it--like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying any attention to because the police are too busy doing something else.

The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road, it is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower, it makes it more difficult for them to speed. Does it solve the whole problem? No, but it is one speed bump on the way to solving the problem.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. Now, in other businesses, that sounds like how we already operate. But it is not the way the packer operates. Producers are only given a contract that says they will get a certain dollar above the average at the time of the slaughter. And then if the person who controls the market drives the price down, the average can be well below what they ever anticipated it would be.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on the factors they do control.

Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements. In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. That would be pretty unique if they knew what the prices were on the products, particularly when it is captive supply. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice. The key is they have the access to do so.

I have worked on a number of bills and we have had success getting them through the Senate, and then the lobbying effort in conference knocks them out. That has sincerely convinced me there is a controlled market. Every attempt we make to provide a little speed bump is taken out and it is usually in conference. It usually passes the House, passes the Senate--not in identical form--but it has trouble in the conference committee. That is because there are a lot more lobbyists for the packers than there are for the small ranchers and livestock producers.

My bill also limits the size of the contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or

30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that will be offered by any individual. This key portion prevents small- and medium- sized livestock producers like those found in Wyoming from being shut out of deals containing thousands of livestock per contract. The more animals you have in the contract, the less likely it is that people can freely participate in the bidding process. It eliminates people.

We are sticking a small number of animals in each contract, but lots of contracts will help us to arrive at a more fair price for the livestock. Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation, and undue preferences, the things mentioned in that 1921 act.

These are not the only benefits in my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. He is not guessing what he will sell it for; he has an exact price. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic. We tried a number of things to get price discovery so that the producers out there would have an idea what the true market is, whether it is being bought from other producers or being bought out of the captive supply. Every attempt we have made has been thwarted. They have found ways to put little loopholes in regulations so they do not have to report prices. That is not fair. It does not provide an open market.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home State. I wish I had time to share some of the heartrending stories of the way they have been taken to the cleaners on these unique contracts they are forced to sign if they want to be able to sell their product.

The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business and protect the consumers. If there was a fluctuation out here on the other end where the consumer is, we might not have quite the same concern, but the consumer is not getting the benefit of this fixed market. So we need to change the fixed market.

We need to change captive supply. My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing, and that is formula price contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field. It will help the economy of the entire United States. I ask for your help on this bill. We will be circulating some letters and further explanations so that we can have cosponsors; and pass the bill unanimously, I hope. I know that is a little difficult to obtain around here, but this is a very important issue and every State has livestock producers. It is time we took care of the livestock producers in a way that did not cost us a lot through enforcement.

I would love to see improved enforcement. I know there are other priority issues on enforcement, particularly since September 11, so I have tried to bring a little speed bump to provide accurate pricing. I ask for your help on the bill.

To reiterate:

Whenever there is a crisis the media has always served to focus the Nation's attention on the problem and who has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's property and their livelihood.

Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to normalcy.

We have all seen in these past few days the pictures of the devastating tornadoes that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched down. Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe weather. Tornadoes do not last a long time, but they leave a path of devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever changed.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who have been so affected and our hopes that they will be able to put their lives back together and go on as difficult as that will be to do.

As we view the devastation of those tornadoes, there are those in my State who have seen their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and unfair market policy, but they have not been so visible to us because we have not seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more difficult to track.

Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods-- thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.

Our Nation's ranching industry is in trouble, and, due to the slower pace with which it has been affected, the only stark images we will see of the intensity of the problem are the ``for sale'' or ``up for auction'' signs that acknowledge the closing of a family owned ranch and the end of a family's dream that lasted for generations as the land and the business was handed down for many, many years.

Right now, as I speak, if you are a rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.

The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets.

So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.

If you have not heard about the problem, I must point out that our ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we have not fully focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a town meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from my constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in Wyoming, and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception, they are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years.

I could bring a stack of letters that come from people all across my State

about the problems they face. But, in the interest of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try to deal with captive supply.

A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was ``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He then added:

Until the existing laws are enforced in this area of

illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very

little consequence.

So what is captive supply and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.

The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs.

But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies.

The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control more than half of all U.S. hog slaughter and more than 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that have not aligned with specific packers.

We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee on the farm bill. However, the problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and still do, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock.

Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.

As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

In fact, the data published by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service indicates that in the first week of May 2003, 39,149 of the cattle slaughtered were sold through a forward contract. By comparison, 207,955 of the cattle slaughtered were marketed through formula pricing marketing agreements. Packers were using five times as many formula pricing marketing agreements as forward contracts to purchase their slaughter cattle. As we can see, packers use more marketing agreements because of the advantages those ambiguous contracts give them over producers.

In the same week, 36,899 of the cattle slaughtered were directly owned by packers. These numbers demonstrate that the problem of captive supply is far more extensive than just packer ownership. In the first week of May, packer owned cattle only comprised 13 percent of captive cattle slaughtered. This is why we must act to solve the entire captive supply problem.

I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the situation if you are not familiar with the cattle market. Most of us have not signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a market structured like the current livestock market.

It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September. As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that time. It turns out that other people do not really buy homes from each other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal with one of these companies.

One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have just been practically forced to sign a contract that doesn't specify how much you will receive for your house.

That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away from the market. All the homes selling in September that are not contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your home for $2,000 below average.

As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.

Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b):

It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to

livestock . . . to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory,

or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or

advantage to any particular person or locality in any

respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any

undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any

respect.

Packers who practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it--like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult for them to speed.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price

after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements.

In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.

My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract.

Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home State. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business.

My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing--formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field.

I yield the floor.