Floor Statements

Mr. President, in February the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on the success of the automatic enrollment provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 which helped millions of workers and their families access to a 401(k) retirement savings accounts. Because of the Pension Protection Act, we greatly expanded retirement savings and individuals ability to put money away for their golden years.

Just last week, Fidelity Investments released a report that employer- sponsored retirement plans with an automatic enrollment feature have an overall participation rate of 82 percent compared with only 56 percent without automatic enrollment. The Fidelity report also indicated that average account balances for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts have reached an all-time high. This is some good news to show that workers and their families retirement accounts are coming back from the economic distress of just a few years ago.

While our Nation's 401(k) retirement system is providing greater opportunities for individuals to save, there is still room for improvement. Recent studies have shown that money saved in 401(k) accounts sometimes ``leaks'' out of the system and is never put back. AonHewitt released a report this week showing that unpaid loans, withdrawals and cashouts of 401(k) monies, otherwise known as ``leakage,'' can have a substantial effect on how much money ultimately will be there for retirement. According to the AonHewitt report, an individual who ceases to make loan repayments during the loan term is expected to erode future retirement income by 10 to 13 percent. If the individual has two loans and payments are not made then the reduction in retirement savings nearly doubles. In the event of a complete default of the loan, then the monies are permanently gone from the retirement system.

Today, I join the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in taking the first step in helping to stop leakage in the retirement system. Chairman Kohl held a hearing on this very issue and had the Government Accountability Office, GAO, research and come up with recommendations to stop retirement savings leakage. The bill we introduce today, The Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Pension Act also known as the SEAL Act, is based upon those initial GAO recommendations.

The SEAL Act takes the first steps in helping workers and their families to pay back loans from 401(k) accounts when a worker leaves a job. Typically, when a worker separates from an employer any outstanding 401(k) loan must be paid back immediately or suffer tax penalties. The SEAL Act would allow for a greater period of time for the loan to be paid back thereby helping families to pay back the loan and allowing the monies to be put back into their retirement savings and avoid the tax penalty.

The bill also would remove the prohibition against individuals from making contributions to their 401(k) accounts in the following 6 months after a hardship loan has been made. Situations where hardship loans are made are some of the most stressful times for individuals and their families. If they have the ability and means to continue to contribute to their 401(k) accounts then they should be provided that option. The bill gives them the option to continue to save for retirement even in dire circumstances.

Finally, the bill would provide structural changes to 401(k) plans to help businesses keep down administrative costs and extra fees. Currently, the Internal Revenue Code permits businesses to structure retirement plans with an unlimited amount of loans per individual but an individual cannot take more than 50 percent of their retirement account balances in loans up to $50,000 for all outstanding loans. The Federal Government's Thrift Savings Plan has a limit of two outstanding loans, one personal loan and one loan for the purchase of a house, at any time. We consulted with retirement experts, mutual funds and retirement service providers and virtually all agreed that the optimal number of loans agreed upon was 3 outstanding loans at any time. Some believed that we should match the Thrift Savings Plan, however, we believe that businesses need to reduce administrative costs but they should be able to provide flexibility to their workers. The bill also would restrict the use of credit and/or debit card loans on 401(k) accounts. Again, these types of loans pull money out in ``reserve'' so that individuals can tap the reserve at any time. However, the extra administrative costs and fees are burdensome to businesses and to their workers.

Overall, the SEAL bill is the first step in helping to provide flexibility for individuals and plan structure to help keep retirement monies in retirement savings accounts. I look forward to working with Chairman Kohl in moving this important piece of retirement savings legislation. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and add other items to help reduce leakage in 401(k) retirement savings and to help our Nation's workers and their families have their money there for them at retirement. Each step that we take to stop leakage will mean that individuals will be more financial secure in retirement.

Mr. President, in February the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on the success of the automatic enrollment provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 which helped millions of workers and their families access to a 401(k) retirement savings accounts. Because of the Pension Protection Act, we greatly expanded retirement savings and individuals ability to put money away for their golden years.

Just last week, Fidelity Investments released a report that employer- sponsored retirement plans with an automatic enrollment feature have an overall participation rate of 82 percent compared with only 56 percent without automatic enrollment. The Fidelity report also indicated that average account balances for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts have reached an all-time high. This is some good news to show that workers and their families retirement accounts are coming back from the economic distress of just a few years ago.

While our Nation's 401(k) retirement system is providing greater opportunities for individuals to save, there is still room for improvement. Recent studies have shown that money saved in 401(k) accounts sometimes ``leaks'' out of the system and is never put back. AonHewitt released a report this week showing that unpaid loans, withdrawals and cashouts of 401(k) monies, otherwise known as ``leakage,'' can have a substantial effect on how much money ultimately will be there for retirement. According to the AonHewitt report, an individual who ceases to make loan repayments during the loan term is expected to erode future retirement income by 10 to 13 percent. If the individual has two loans and payments are not made then the reduction in retirement savings nearly doubles. In the event of a complete default of the loan, then the monies are permanently gone from the retirement system.

Today, I join the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in taking the first step in helping to stop leakage in the retirement system. Chairman Kohl held a hearing on this very issue and had the Government Accountability Office, GAO, research and come up with recommendations to stop retirement savings leakage. The bill we introduce today, The Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Pension Act also known as the SEAL Act, is based upon those initial GAO recommendations.

The SEAL Act takes the first steps in helping workers and their families to pay back loans from 401(k) accounts when a worker leaves a job. Typically, when a worker separates from an employer any outstanding 401(k) loan must be paid back immediately or suffer tax penalties. The SEAL Act would allow for a greater period of time for the loan to be paid back thereby helping families to pay back the loan and allowing the monies to be put back into their retirement savings and avoid the tax penalty.

The bill also would remove the prohibition against individuals from making contributions to their 401(k) accounts in the following 6 months after a hardship loan has been made. Situations where hardship loans are made are some of the most stressful times for individuals and their families. If they have the ability and means to continue to contribute to their 401(k) accounts then they should be provided that option. The bill gives them the option to continue to save for retirement even in dire circumstances.

Finally, the bill would provide structural changes to 401(k) plans to help businesses keep down administrative costs and extra fees. Currently, the Internal Revenue Code permits businesses to structure retirement plans with an unlimited amount of loans per individual but an individual cannot take more than 50 percent of their retirement account balances in loans up to $50,000 for all outstanding loans. The Federal Government's Thrift Savings Plan has a limit of two outstanding loans, one personal loan and one loan for the purchase of a house, at any time. We consulted with retirement experts, mutual funds and retirement service providers and virtually all agreed that the optimal number of loans agreed upon was 3 outstanding loans at any time. Some believed that we should match the Thrift Savings Plan, however, we believe that businesses need to reduce administrative costs but they should be able to provide flexibility to their workers. The bill also would restrict the use of credit and/or debit card loans on 401(k) accounts. Again, these types of loans pull money out in ``reserve'' so that individuals can tap the reserve at any time. However, the extra administrative costs and fees are burdensome to businesses and to their workers.

Overall, the SEAL bill is the first step in helping to provide flexibility for individuals and plan structure to help keep retirement monies in retirement savings accounts. I look forward to working with Chairman Kohl in moving this important piece of retirement savings legislation. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and add other items to help reduce leakage in 401(k) retirement savings and to help our Nation's workers and their families have their money there for them at retirement. Each step that we take to stop leakage will mean that individuals will be more financial secure in retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing burdens placed on states by our Federal Government in recent years and how we can stop this trend.

Our States have faced many Federal mandates in recent years that have hurt, not helped, the citizenry of our country. In 2009 alone, the Federal Government issued over 3,300 new rules and regulations. This puts the total number of Federal rules and regulations placed on our States and citizens at around 75,000 as of 2010. In addition, incredible price tags have been placed on our citizens due to these laws and regulations. Our country is facing trillions of dollars in debt and forcing further expenses onto our taxpayers is inexcusable.

This Federal top-down approach does not encourage a strong economy. States and local governments should have the ability to address the needs of their citizens in ways that actually fix the problem without their hands being tied by burdensome Federal rules, regulations, and laws. I have always believed that the ingenuity of individuals should not be hampered and top-down approaches do just that. As of now, states have one recourse, go through the court system which is already backlogged.

No matter who has the political power within our Federal Government, States need to have the ability to force the Federal Government to reconsider laws and regulations that do not support them. Providing states with the option of repealing any Federal law or regulation is the next step. Allowing a repeal option would also institute a check against egregious congressional actions and especially un-elected bureaucratic action.

Today, I am introducing the Repeal Amendment to address this issue. My colleague Representative Rob Bishop of Utah is introducing this important piece of legislation in the House of Representatives so that we can give the states a real voice. Allowing States the option to say no will allow them the breathing room to decide what policies are best for them.

The Repeal Amendment would allow States to remove unnecessary and burdensome Federal laws and regulations. When 2/3 of the States collectively find a Federal law or regulation so out of touch and destructive, they will have the power to repeal it if they so choose.

States must be given back their role as an equal partner in addressing the needs and issues of the people of the United States. The growing Federal Government must be put in check and I believe that the Repeal Amendment will do just that.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing burdens placed on states by our Federal Government in recent years and how we can stop this trend.

Our States have faced many Federal mandates in recent years that have hurt, not helped, the citizenry of our country. In 2009 alone, the Federal Government issued over 3,300 new rules and regulations. This puts the total number of Federal rules and regulations placed on our States and citizens at around 75,000 as of 2010. In addition, incredible price tags have been placed on our citizens due to these laws and regulations. Our country is facing trillions of dollars in debt and forcing further expenses onto our taxpayers is inexcusable.

This Federal top-down approach does not encourage a strong economy. States and local governments should have the ability to address the needs of their citizens in ways that actually fix the problem without their hands being tied by burdensome Federal rules, regulations, and laws. I have always believed that the ingenuity of individuals should not be hampered and top-down approaches do just that. As of now, states have one recourse, go through the court system which is already backlogged.

No matter who has the political power within our Federal Government, States need to have the ability to force the Federal Government to reconsider laws and regulations that do not support them. Providing states with the option of repealing any Federal law or regulation is the next step. Allowing a repeal option would also institute a check against egregious congressional actions and especially un-elected bureaucratic action.

Today, I am introducing the Repeal Amendment to address this issue. My colleague Representative Rob Bishop of Utah is introducing this important piece of legislation in the House of Representatives so that we can give the states a real voice. Allowing States the option to say no will allow them the breathing room to decide what policies are best for them.

The Repeal Amendment would allow States to remove unnecessary and burdensome Federal laws and regulations. When 2/3 of the States collectively find a Federal law or regulation so out of touch and destructive, they will have the power to repeal it if they so choose.

States must be given back their role as an equal partner in addressing the needs and issues of the people of the United States. The growing Federal Government must be put in check and I believe that the Repeal Amendment will do just that.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Landrieu known as the Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill will codify the Voluntary Protection Programs, or VPP, expand it to include more small businesses, and incorporate recent GAO recommendations for program improvements.

No program has been more successful in creating such a culture of safety in the workplace than VPP. Since it was created in 1982, Republican and Democrat administrations alike have fostered its growth to more than 2,500 worksites, a quarter of which are unionized, and it covers approximately one million employees. The bipartisan support for VPP continues into this Congress. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee unanimously approved an amendment to preserve VPP budget authority and I have been pleased to work with the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, on this bill again this Congress. Our bill is also drawing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Congressmen Tom Petri and Gene Green are introducing companion legislation today and 1 thank them for their strong support on this important issue.

Worksites that pass the rigorous evaluation process and become VPP sites have an average Days Away Restricted or Transferred, DART, case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry. In recent years, smaller worksites have made significant strides in VPP, increasing from 28 percent of VPP sites in 2003 to 44 percent in 2010.

The innovative program doesn't just keep employees safer; as I have noted, it also saves both the VPP companies and the taxpayer's money. In 2007, Federal Agency VPP participants saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. The Department of Defense has estimated that it saves between $73,000 and $8.8 million per site because of VPP. Additionally, when workplaces make the significant commitment to safety required by VPP, it allows OSHA to focus its resources where they are most needed. VPP Participant employers contribute a great deal to the VPP program expenditures. VPP participants have assigned approximately 1,200 of their own employees to act as OSHA Special Government Employees, SGEs, who conduct onsite evaluations for OSHA.

Despite the strong bipartisan support for VPP and its very positive results, the need for this legislation has become painfully clear. Last year, the administration's fiscal year 2011 Budget Request proposed eliminating the small amount it takes to administer VPP--$3.125 million--and sought to transfer the 35 FTE it takes to run the program to other functions. The failure to complete the appropriations process last year thwarted that plan, and the administration did not renew the request in their fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. I hope that Department of Labor officials will note the bipartisan support VPP has and maintain support for the program. Surely, this proven life and cost-saving program is something we can all get behind.

I would like to thank Senator Landrieu for working with me on this important legislation and add the following Senators as original cosponsors: Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Isakson and Sen. Coburn.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Landrieu known as the Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill will codify the Voluntary Protection Programs, or VPP, expand it to include more small businesses, and incorporate recent GAO recommendations for program improvements.

No program has been more successful in creating such a culture of safety in the workplace than VPP. Since it was created in 1982, Republican and Democrat administrations alike have fostered its growth to more than 2,500 worksites, a quarter of which are unionized, and it covers approximately one million employees. The bipartisan support for VPP continues into this Congress. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee unanimously approved an amendment to preserve VPP budget authority and I have been pleased to work with the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, on this bill again this Congress. Our bill is also drawing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Congressmen Tom Petri and Gene Green are introducing companion legislation today and 1 thank them for their strong support on this important issue.

Worksites that pass the rigorous evaluation process and become VPP sites have an average Days Away Restricted or Transferred, DART, case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry. In recent years, smaller worksites have made significant strides in VPP, increasing from 28 percent of VPP sites in 2003 to 44 percent in 2010.

The innovative program doesn't just keep employees safer; as I have noted, it also saves both the VPP companies and the taxpayer's money. In 2007, Federal Agency VPP participants saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. The Department of Defense has estimated that it saves between $73,000 and $8.8 million per site because of VPP. Additionally, when workplaces make the significant commitment to safety required by VPP, it allows OSHA to focus its resources where they are most needed. VPP Participant employers contribute a great deal to the VPP program expenditures. VPP participants have assigned approximately 1,200 of their own employees to act as OSHA Special Government Employees, SGEs, who conduct onsite evaluations for OSHA.

Despite the strong bipartisan support for VPP and its very positive results, the need for this legislation has become painfully clear. Last year, the administration's fiscal year 2011 Budget Request proposed eliminating the small amount it takes to administer VPP--$3.125 million--and sought to transfer the 35 FTE it takes to run the program to other functions. The failure to complete the appropriations process last year thwarted that plan, and the administration did not renew the request in their fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. I hope that Department of Labor officials will note the bipartisan support VPP has and maintain support for the program. Surely, this proven life and cost-saving program is something we can all get behind.

I would like to thank Senator Landrieu for working with me on this important legislation and add the following Senators as original cosponsors: Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Isakson and Sen. Coburn.

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

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the other accountant in the Senate. It is nice to have additional help with numbers. It will make a tremendous difference.

He has had both the business experience and the accounting experience, and he understands a lot of things that to us in the Senate are pretty simple but to the person working on the ground it is very difficult. He is good at expressing himself and, as I said, particularly good with numbers. So I congratulate him on his maiden speech.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about decisions we need to make about cutting spending, decisions we need to make now.

The Congress and the White House have not agreed on how much spending needs to be cut or where the cuts need to come from, but at least we can all agree that spending does need to be cut. Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses for decades have continually increased Federal spending. Change is hard. It can be painful. That is because we have lots of ideas for great programs that would really help people out. But it is absolutely essential that our spending habits take a 180-degree turn starting right now.

Tonight at midnight, the government will shut down if Congress does not pass a continuing resolution. This situation can be avoided if decisions are made in the next several hours.

The House approved a temporary plan yesterday to fund the government for another week while a longer term deal was worked out. That plan also funds our military through September. It includes language the Democrats have approved in the past and the President has signed. But the full Senate--all Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike--has not been allowed a chance to vote on it.

In the Senate, we don't always agree on every line included in a given bill, and we don't get a chance to vote on every line included in a given bill, but I will venture to say most of us can agree on some of them. We can all agree that a government shutdown is not an outcome anyone wants.

The bottom line is that talk is cheap, and it is time to stop talking about passing a continuing resolution and take action. Actually, it is action that should have happened last September. Then we could be working on the next year instead of the last year. The House-passed bill gives us such an opportunity. It is the only bill that provides funding for the troops, funds the government, and continues the practice of cutting spending.

We are in this position because we do not have a budget from last year, and we do not have completed funding bills for the current fiscal year. The current fiscal year started last October 1--not January 1, last October 1. We were supposed to get that finished up in September so that agencies know what they are going to be spending for the next fiscal year beginning October 1. Without action, the agencies get to spend a proportionate amount of what they spent the previous year.

This year, we haven't had nearly the pressure to get a budget done that we have had in previous years. But it is easy to know why. The previous year, the spending increased by 18 percent. So agencies get to continue spending at 18 percent above previous levels until we do something about it.

It is far too late to do what we should have done last September, which is make drastic cuts. We have already had 6 months of additional spending, which makes it a little tougher at this time of year because any spending cuts have to be taken out of the total year's revenue beginning now. So a 50-percent decrease in an overall budget now is tough because it is taken from funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. I am an accountant, so I like to explain how funding cuts work.

I am especially concerned about our men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for this country. They will be paid despite the shutdown, but their compensation should not have to be delayed. They don't hesitate to defend this country, and we should not hesitate to return that loyalty. I strongly support efforts to make sure military personnel and their families are paid without delay if the government shuts down.

I am hearing from servicemembers and their families in Wyoming. They are worried about paying the rent, paying the bills, feeding their children. Some have recently been transferred and are dealing with the expense of moving their families across country or, in some cases, back to the United States. They do not know where the backpay will come from and are not sure what to tell their landlords or their banks. They want and deserve answers.

For some time, we have been talking about reining in spending and making sure our grandchildren are not saddled with the enormous debt this country is facing. What we need to do in Washington is live within our means. We have not been doing that, and it shows. We have a $14 trillion debt, and it is growing daily. Does anybody know what 1 trillion is? I will tell you a good start: Write the number ``14'' and put 12 zeros after it. It is a whole different number than 1,000 or 1 million or 1 billion. I saw a kid with a T-shirt that said: Please don't tell them what comes after a trillion. They are worried about it, and they should be. We should all be worried about it.

This year we are going to take in $2.2 trillion. That is a lot of money. Unfortunately, we are going to spend $3.7 trillion. Imagine if you are a person who makes about $67,000 a year, and you spend $100,000 a year, each and every year. Where are you going to get the money? Well, for a while you could probably borrow it. That is what we have been doing. We are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. That is the only way we can stay afloat--by borrowing 40 cents of every $1.

That means the interest on what we owe is $616 million a day--a day. We are haggling over $61 billion in cuts. That would fund the government's interest for 100 days--a drop in the bucket. But we have to start sometime, and the best time to start is now.

Yesterday, Britain raised their interest rates one-quarter of a percent. That is not much. Do you know what happens if our bonds go up one-quarter of a percent? We are spending $240 billion--with a B--a year on interest. If it goes up by 1 percent, we are going to spend another $140 billion a year on interest. Interest payments do not buy military equipment. They do not build schools. Interest payments go to other parts of the world, some of which are not our friends. If our interest rates increased by one quarter of one percent, that would be an additional $35 billion owed--$35 billion just in increased interest. If it goes up a whole percent, it is $140 billion.

So what we have been talking about is going back to 2008 levels of spending, plus inflation. I have been talking to Wyoming folks who have come out here. March is a big month for people to come to Washington because they all come out for their special programs to make sure we know how important they are. Of course, one disappointment I always have is they think each one of those programs gets a vote. They do not. By the time it gets here, what we get to do is vote for a package that cuts spending or sometimes a package that increases spending. We do not even get to vote on one that keeps spending neutral. In the condition we are in, we have to be voting for the one that cuts spending-- whatever one it is that happens to get to us. Yes, cutting spending is going to inflict some pain on some programs that each of us feels is extremely important.

It will affect families. It will affect people. But that is what happens when you get so delayed in outlining what you are going to pay that you are 6 months late. If you were paying your own bills and you were 6 months late paying them, what would your creditors say? They would be a little upset. That is where we are. We are that far behind. It is a dilemma, how to fund

the government so it spends within its means. But we are going to have to do that.

When I explain where we are and what we have to do and talk about going back to 2008 levels, I have been real pleased that the Wyoming people say: Well, we can live with that. Hopefully, we don't have to go below the 2008 levels. Well, if we were being serious about it, we would. But that is where we are talking about going, the 2008 levels. So that is what we are facing today. The budget forecast for the future is troubling if we make changes now and dire if we do not. With Americans across the county tightening their belts, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same.

Folks in Wyoming do understand this concept. Our State is required-- and many States are required--to operate under a balanced budget, and that does not mean borrowing money in order to balance the budget. That means spending less than the revenues you get in any given year. Wyoming is one of the few States that are still operating in the black.

We noticed there was a problem, and I want to congratulate Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for getting together the deficit commission bill. We got a lot of cosponsors on it, and we had a vote on it. We did not have the 60 votes that were necessary to do it. But I applaud the President for picking that up and appointing a deficit commission. I think he had two great cochairs. He had Alan Simpson, a former Senator, and Erskine Bowles, who was the Chief of Staff for President Clinton. They joined with 16 other people to figure out how to get out of this morass. They came up with a plan, a good plan.

Their 18-member Commission had to have 14 members in favor of it before they could actually put it into a forced vote for us. They did not get that. They came close, but they did not get that. Of course, I would have liked them to have broken that down, promised they would do all six parts but break it down into six different parts because different people objected to different parts, and there would have been enough support to pass each part. We may have to do that in order to get the same thing done on the Senate floor. I hope we will pursue that. We need to pursue that. It is an absolute must.

The President did the right thing appointing the Commission. But we had the State of the Union speech this year, and I thought he would take what the Commission said and make it clear to the United States that we must follow the Commission's recommendations. The President is very good at making things clear, and they gave him a blueprint to make clear. I think everybody in the United States would have understood. In fact, I think a lot of people in the United States understand, even without the explanation. They know if you spend more than you take in, you are going broke. We have been doing it so long we are $14.6 trillion broke.

President Obama had another opportunity, which was the budget, and I hoped his budget would reflect what the deficit commission said. One of the things I found was he took some of the savings in tax expenditures that could have resulted in some lower tax rates to increase our international competitiveness and he spent it on new programs. As I mentioned before, everybody has ideas for new programs, and a lot of them are good ideas, and they would have an impact. But we are not even able to afford the programs we already have.

I wish to laud Senator Coburn for joining me in asking for a review of duplicative programs. In one department, we found $10 billion worth of duplicative programs. That is not fraud, waste, and abuse. That is people doing the same things as everybody else. I know from working on education that in preschool we have 69 different preschool programs that receive almost as much money as all of kindergarten through high school from the Federal Government. There is a review on which ones are effective and which ones are not, but we do not ever do anything with the ones that are not. We are going to have to start eliminating ineffective programs.

Several of my colleagues and I have suggested going back to funding levels enacted in 2008 before the economic stimulus bill became the baseline for government spending.

It is time to start making tough choices. If we do not make cuts now, all the scenarios down the road are worse than what we are facing today.

Let's stop the partisan banter and concentrate on the job we are here to do. The current discussions between the Congress and the White House are the beginning of America's journey back from the brink of financial ruin. This is the first of many budget engagements. Democrats and Republicans are playing chicken and neither is swerving. There may be a collision tonight, but in the end, amongst the wreckage, smoke, and scattered debris, I know America has to be the one left standing.

We can make it easy or we can make it hard. We do need to focus on getting a long-term funding bill passed for the remainder of the fiscal year--not just the next 5 days, the remainder of the fiscal year. Time is running out in that year.

If we can get this done, we can start doing the real work; that is, focusing on the Nation's solvency for future generations. Senator Conrad, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, has said he is not going to start on the next year's budget until we finish this year's appropriations. I think that probably makes sense so you know how much money there is left over. But, wait a minute, there is not any money left over. We are overspending.

As a grandpa, I do want to get this done so my grandchildren and other children across the State of Wyoming and across the Nation are not stuck with the consequences of our inaction. I hope everyone here hopes they never have to answer to any of their grandchildren why they had a chance to fix the problem and they did not. I do not think that will happen. I think we will reach an agreement. I hope it is done tonight.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the American dream and honoring those who have not only embodied a pioneering spirit, but more specifically, one individual who inspired two nations through his passionate leadership, and through his dedication to family and pride in tradition.

Italian-American Guiseppe Garibaldi lived and fought for the dream of creating his own destiny. All too often today we give little thought to the freedom of deciding who we are, to deciding what we want to be even how and where we raise a family and practice our faith. However, 150 years ago, these decisions meant the world to Mr. Garibaldi.

Giuseppe Garibaldi was born in Nice, Italy, on July 4, 1807. In his early twenties, Mr. Garibaldi continued his family's coastal trade business and answered a call of duty to enlist in the military. At the age of 25, Garibaldi's budding leadership was recognized and he was commissioned as a merchant marine captain.

Throughout Central and South America, he fought in independence struggles leading the Italian Legion. His success earned him the title ``Hero of Two Worlds'' from the people of Italy and Uruguay. Garibaldi continued to foster his passionate beliefs and soon after leaving South America began learning English and applied for citizenship in America. His request was granted and Garibaldi settled in New York among other notable Italian minds of the time. Not only did he become a community leader for Italian Americans living in Staten Island, he encouraged fellow immigrants to work hard for their dreams and to create true communities with their neighbors, while still embracing family and traditions from Italy.

After his time living in the United States, Garibaldi was called upon again to be a military leader. He led the troops at Risorgimento that fought to unite a divided Italy and succeeded in their mission in 1861. This man's great works and leadership helped shift Italy from a dynastic tyranny to a time of political self-determination.

Because of this extraordinary accomplishment, President Abraham Lincoln offered Garibaldi a position as Major General of the Union Army. Although Garibaldi declined the impressive commission, the 39th New York Infantry was still known afterward as ``The Garibaldi Guard''--where Italian-Americans fought alongside fellow soldiers to protect the America they loved.

Giuseppe Garibaldi was not just a soldier though. He was a husband, father and an active free mason who believed that people should unite as brothers within a nation and as a global community. He encouraged fellow immigrants to persevere through hope and hard work and to be proud of their Italian roots.

As an Italian American, I am proud of my heritage and this is why yesterday I introduced a bill today to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Giuseppe Garibaldi for his life's passions and accomplishments. My bill also commemorates the 150th anniversary of the Republic of Italy, which will be celebrated across Italy and the United States on March 17, 2011. Thank you to Congressman Michael Grimm of New York who is introducing the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my hope that this legislation will challenge us all to pause and reflect on the pioneering spirit, family and traditions that have made this great country what it is today.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the legislative climate the United States Senate has found itself operating in. Like many of my colleagues, I began my political career in local government. I was mayor in my hometown and then served as a legislator in the Wyoming State Legislature. It was during this time I learned that the most effective legislation comes from a process that is transparent and focused. For example, the Wyoming State Legislature requires that all bills must be focused on one issue. They cannot be loaded up with random provisions, riders, and add-ons that have nothing to do with the overall legislation. In Congress, we often use omnibus bills to pass multiple legislative items that should be considered on their own merit. Omnibus bills often create more problems in the long run than they solve.

Instead of focusing on one policy issue at a time, we have allowed legislative logjams to foul up the Senate's work and ill-considered legislation to be hastily pushed through this institution. These legislative practices, which have become the norm, are a gangrene that eats away at this institution.

Legislation that is fundamental to our country's well-being has become politicized and burdened with extraneous provisions that have not been fully vetted through the regular order. Most of the time Members have not had the opportunity to read the bills they are voting on, let alone the public which will have to live under and pay for whatever lurks in the unseen pages. By tolerating this behavior, the Senate is allowing legislation needed to address our Nation's most pressing challenges to go through unrefined and lousy with special interest provisions.

To help bring this institution back in line with its original purpose, today I reintroduce my Single Issue Legislation bill. I want this bill to be a starting point for changing the attitude the Senate has toward building bills. It will allow us to focus on getting individual issues addressed more effectively. Specifically, this bill enacts a standing order that creates a point of order against a bill or resolution that is not confined to a single issue. This point of order can only be overruled by a supermajority.

My Single Issue Legislation gives the Senate the flexibility in the amendment process it has always enjoyed and allows the Senate as a legislative body to develop the structure and scope of the standing order through practice and precedent rather than through arbitrary rules. At the same time, we ensure that our legislative process is focused and productive. In short, we bring ourselves back to how the Founding Fathers intended and wanted our legislative process to operate.

Our job is not to score political points by stuffing as many pet projects and knee-jerk provisions as we can into bills, but rather to represent the needs of our constituents, our States, and our country by doing what is best for us as a nation. We must get back to a better process for crafting and considering legislation so that we can enact effective policies to meet the many challenges we face today. This is why we were elected to serve in the United States Senate. We owe it to the people we represent to work through a process that allows legislation to be properly and thoroughly considered and debated. My Single Issue Legislation bill helps us do just that.

Mr. President, we will soon mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents. In the days and months to come, in cities and towns all across this great Nation of ours, people will pause for a moment to reflect on the past and remember him, each in their own way, for the greatness in him that inspired a nation. I know he would be humbled by and greatly appreciative of our remembrance of his legacy of service and touched by the great admiration and affection with which we will always remember him.

I don't think anyone is a better example of the American dream than Ronald Reagan. He was born in Illinois, the son of a shoe salesman. His mother loved to read and she encouraged him to do the same by reading to him. In books Reagan was able to tap into the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and many other great leaders of our past. What he learned from his reading would help to shape his character and ultimately mold his destiny.

It wasn't long before Reagan's natural confidence and his determination to do something with his life began to show itself, first during his school years and later when he pursued a career as an actor. He proved to be a born leader and he took a leadership role at every stage of his life. While in college, he served as student body President. In his acting days he served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. In between he worked hard and built a career as a successful actor in film and television as he became a familiar face in Hollywood.

If that had been all he had done, he would be remembered for his talents and abilities as an actor. He would have earned his reputation for being unafraid of hard work and his life would have inspired others to follow his path just by his success in Hollywood. All of the fame and notoriety that came from his acting days would have been enough for most people, but not for Ronald Reagan. He was just getting warmed up. The best was yet to come.

With his beloved wife Nancy by his side, Ronald Reagan began to pursue a bigger dream. He wanted to make an impact on the world that would put him on a bigger stage. He wanted to get more involved in politics and put his principles and values into action in the work that had to be done to solve the problems facing the Nation.

His first effort was a run for Governor of California. People thought that was an impossible dream of his and he would never make it. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong--not for the first or the last time. He took his case to the people, put together a coalition of both Republicans and Democrats and when the votes were counted, he had won.

I still remember meeting him when I was the president of the Wyoming Jaycees. We held our national convention in California and Ronald Reagan spoke to us. I had a chance to meet him and I was quickly impressed by his personality and his style. He clearly had a way not only with words, but to connect to people one on one. Still, I don't think any of us could have guessed what would happen next in his life.

Reagan had his sights set on the Presidency of the United States. He knew it wasn't going to be easy, but for Ronald Reagan the only failure would be to fail to try. He wasn't successful at first, but he never gave up. He kept traveling around the country, speaking to groups, and sharing his message of hope and opportunity with the people who came to hear him speak. This seemed to be another impossible dream, but once again Reagan made it happen. He won the Republican nomination for President, facing an incumbent who spoke often about the terrible problems facing the Nation. Ronald Reagan didn't speak with doubt and uncertainty about the future; he spoke with strong and passionate certainty that things would get better if we all worked together.

Unfortunately, optimism will only get you so far--so when the time came for him to take the oath of office, he knew he had a lot of work to do. He often referred to our economic problems as the ``misery index.'' We were in the middle of a time of high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation. The Nation seemed to have lost its self-confidence and no longer believed that it could dare to do great things--and succeed. The experts all seemed to say that there was little if anything that one person could do to change things and reenergize the Nation.

Once again, Ronald Reagan proved the experts wrong. It seemed almost overnight things changed. There was a renewed sense of confidence in our shared destiny as a nation, a new feeling of hope and opportunity about the

future, and a return to the spirit of America that had been lost. In just a short time, with his words and his actions, he inspired a generation to look to the future with the kind of confidence that comes from our belief in and commitment to the principles upon which our Nation was founded.

I remember those days very well. I was the mayor of Gillette, WY, and when the National League of Cities held its national meeting the President flew to California to speak to our group. I had a chance to meet with him again and enjoyed having an opportunity to speak to him. He was the greatest ambassador for the West and our Western way of life that we have ever had. He understood rural life and because of it he understood the problems of our rural communities. He also understood public service for what it is--service--and he continued to see himself as a public servant throughout his career and his life.

I always thought the years he spent living on his ranch in California were responsible for his passion for speaking the truth, regardless of whether or not it was politically expedient to do so. It is a trait that people in Wyoming appreciate and expect from their leaders. It quickly led to some of his best moments.

I believe we all have strong memories of Ronald Reagan speaking by the Berlin Wall, taking advantage of the occasion to challenge Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall.'' He then went counter to the advice of his staff and referred to the Soviet Union as the ``evil empire.'' For Ronald Reagan, life was that simple. If it was the truth, it must be said for there are two kinds of people in the world--the good guys and the bad guys. If the good guys worked hard and were willing to sacrifice and do whatever it took to succeed, they won. In Ronald Reagan's world, we were the good guys and, during his Presidency, more often than not, we won.

Still, no matter how harsh the rhetoric may have seemed, his political opponents always knew that it wasn't personal--it was principle based. That is why, after all that he said, he was still able to form a friendship with Mr. Gorbachev. Our two countries were two of the biggest superpowers in the world and he knew he would have to find a way to keep the lines of communication, trust and understanding open between them, a necessity that gave way to another of his trademark lines, ``Trust but verify.''

Over the years he turned many a phrase that reflected the strength of his character, his sense of humor and more. He had a unique way of expressing complex truths in simple sentences that held great meaning by virtue of their simplicity.

Because of his trademark one liners and other famous remarks, he has often been called the Great Communicator, a title that caused Reagan to remark ``I never thought it was my style that made a difference--it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things.''

Ronald Reagan did communicate great things and he communicated them in a number of ways--most importantly by the way he lived his life. There is an old saying that reminds us that we can play it safe and take the well worn path or we can dare to go where few have gone before and blaze our own trail in life, leaving a path for others to follow. Such was Ronald Reagan's philosophy and by so doing he helped to give us an example of what was possible for us as individuals and for our Nation.

In the end, Ronald Reagan will be remembered for many things. He found a cure for an ailing economy. He helped to bring an end to the Cold War. He did all of that and so much more but he also did something else that was to prove to be far more important. He helped us to regain our spirit as Americans. He helped us to regain that great pride we had always had for our heritage. He helped us to believe in ourselves again and in our ability to serve as the leaders of the free world, a title we were always meant to carry. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, it is a title we have carried proudly and with purpose ever since. Through his words and his enthusiasm for life and living, the Great Communicator was able to infuse our country with optimism, patriotism and an unashamed hope for a better tomorrow. Thanks to him, the United States of America became a brighter, better place for us all to live as the impact he had on the world around us continues to be felt to this day.

Ronald Reagan's burial site is inscribed with the words he delivered at the opening of his Presidential Library. ``I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and that there is purpose and worth to each and every life.''

As in so many things in life, just like the old show business adage reminds us, he left us wanting more. And that is why he will never be forgotten by those who knew him and those who remember how he touched a generation for the better just by the great strength of his character and the warm gentleness of his soul.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to repeal the new health care law. Repeal is the only way we can prevent the job losses, insurance premiums increases and devastating Medicare cuts that are a direct consequence of the new health care law.

We are just now beginning to see many of the consequences resulting from this poorly conceived, hurriedly drafted 2,700 page law. Rather than taking the time to get it right, the majority rushed to enact this new law, despite the many warning signs pointing out serious flaws in the new law.

These consequences are a result of the majority willfully ignoring those who criticized their proposals and deciding that folks in Washington knew what was best for small businesses and families across the country.

One example of this kind of unintended but easily predicted consequence is the impact on child only health plans. Last week, my staff conducted a survey, and found that the new law and the regulations implementing it have caused many health insurers to stop selling child only plans.

As a direct result of the new law, insurance plans in 34 States have stopped offering child-only plans, and parents in at least 20 states are no longer able to purchase any child only plans. This is a devastating problem for parents who need to buy health insurance plans for their children.

Many parents need to buy child only plans for their children, because their jobs provide insurance for them but not for family members. Before the new law took effect, these parents could buy child only policies for their kids. Unfortunately, because of the new law, parents in 20 States no longer have this option.

For other parents the cost of getting a family plan is too expensive, and their family budget can only afford to buy health insurance for their kids. Again, because of the new law these parents in 20 States no longer have the ability to buy health insurance for their children.

I recently got a letter from a disabled Veteran in Wyoming. He wrote to tell me that because of the new law, he can't get health insurance for his kids. He gets his health care from the VA so he doesn't need a family policy. He needs a policy for his two kids. Because of how the law was drafted and then implemented, this veteran now cannot get health insurance for his children.

I discussed this issue with Secretary Sebelius at a hearing last week in the HELP Committee and her reply was that kids can enroll in SCHIP or the new high-risk pools. In fact, the veteran in Wyoming doesn't qualify for either. While some low income kids are eligible for public programs like SCHIP or Medicaid and some sick kids are eligible for high-risk pools, many children are ineligible for any of these plans, and will now go without insurance as a result of the new law.

Another unintended but easily predicted consequence of the new law is how the new law is undermining the economy and the preventing the creation of new jobs. During that same HELP Committee hearing, we also heard the testimony of Mr. Joe Olivo, who owns a small printing company in Moorestown, NJ.

Mr. Olivo told us how the new law will actually restrict his ability to expand his business and hire new workers. While he currently has 46 employees, he will do everything he can to not hire 5 more people, in order to avoid the new law's mandate to offer health insurance to his employees or pay a new tax. Small businesses across the country are being forced to make similar decisions, in order to avoid the $52 billion in new taxes that the new law attempts to place on employers.

A study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the employer mandate will eliminate 1.6 million jobs at a time when over 15 million Americans are searching for new jobs, most of which are small businesses.

We need to be encouraging our businesses to grow, not discouraging them. Over the last 2 years our economy has lost almost 3 million jobs. Unfortunately, the health reform law makes a bad employment situation even worse.

Another consequence of the new health care law will be to increase the health insurance premiums paid by millions of Americans. During the health care debate, GOP Senators highlighted how the new health care law will cause millions of Americans to pay higher health insurance premiums.

In November of 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new law will increase health insurance premiums by 10 to 13 percent. This means families purchasing coverage on their own will have to pay $2,100 a year more because of the new law.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that many of the new taxes included in the health care reform law will be passed on directly to consumers. This means that each of these new taxes, including the $60 billion tax on health plans, the $20 billion tax on medical devices, and the $27 billion tax on prescription drugs, will further increase premiums for Americans.

In addition to CBO and JCT, six additional private actuarial analyses published by Oliver Wyman, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the Hay Group, Milliman, Wellpoint and Lewin have all shown that the new law could increase premiums, with increases ranging as high as 60 percent.

Additional studies by Milliman determined that because Medicaid pays doctors and hospitals below costs, these providers must increase their costs to everyone else, thereby costing the average American family an extra $1,700 per year. Forcing 16 million more people on to Medicaid will further increase insurance premiums for many Americans, as providers try to shift the costs resulting from inadequate Medicaid reimbursements

The estimates of the law increasing insurance premiums are already being born out in the market. I heard from a small business owner in Saratoga, WY, whose health insurance premiums are going up by 30 percent.

A 30-percent increase in health insurance premiums could tip him over the edge of staying in business or closing his doors. He wrote to me to tell me that he is considering closing the doors of his construction company because he is having trouble making ends meet; he urged me to repeal the new health care law.

Blue Shield of California--a nonprofit health insurer--recently filed a 59-percent premium increase for some of their individual market plans and said that at least a portion of its increase was a direct result of the new law. They estimate premiums will increase by 4 percent to comply with the new mandated benefit.

Another unintended yet easily predicted consequence is the impact of cutting $500 billion from the Medicare Program. You can't cut a program by a $\1/2\ trillion and not expect to see decreases in covered benefits or access to providers.

Republicans understand how important Medicare is to nearly 46 million seniors and disabled Americans. We want to protect and strengthen it. We all know Medicare faces tremendous challenges in the near future.

Yet the law cuts over $500 billion from Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to fund new entitlement spending. More importantly, the new law fails to address even the most basic problems with the Medicare Program, such as the broken physician payment formula.

I have already heard from seniors in Wyoming about how the new law is hurting them. A lady from Thermopolis, WY, wrote to tell me that she got a letter from her Medicare Advantage plan saying her premiums were drastically increasing because of the changes made in the new law.

She wrote say ``unfortunately, my former policy was $0. The ones available now--even the most expensive one--have fewer benefits than what I was getting for free before ObamaCare took so much money from Part C. For instance, $45 for a specialist instead of $35; $10 for a generic drug instead of $6; and up to $350 for tests, when the old policy had a flat rate of $16 for tests. I can't afford the premiums on my Social Security and am considering dropping Part B, which would save me $97 per month.''

These are real life examples of the impact this new law is having on everyday Americans. I get letters every day from my constituents asking me to repeal this new health care law that is limiting their freedoms and emptying their pocketbooks. The Senate will soon vote on whether or not to repeal the new health care law. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents and vote in favor of repeal.

Madam President, we need to pursue a step by step, bipartisan, approach to health reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and allow our economy to expand. Using that process will allow us to thereby avoid the unintended consequences of this deeply flawed new law.

Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I voted against the New START treaty. The U.S. Senate is the deliberative body of Congress. Our forefathers created the Senate so issues of this magnitude are thoroughly considered with all of the facts and with a careful eye on all possible future consequences. With previous treaties of this magnitude, the full Senate has been allowed over a full year to consider what the treaty would require of not only Russia but also the United States. That hasn't happened here, and it is a disconcerting trend.

The executive branches of both the Russian and the U.S. governments stated they will not take actions during the negotiations of this treaty that would be contrary to the spirit of the treaty. Both the Russian and U.S. governments recognize the treaty's implementation will take time. The need to get this treaty right is paramount.

I am concerned that I haven't had all of my specific questions answered about the treaty. Although members of the Foreign Relations Committee have had the opportunity to consider this treaty and ask many questions, the full Senate has not had the chance to have all of their questions answered. Forcing through a treaty without detailed scrutiny by the full Senate is not how our government should work.

Even with post-Cold War threats and adversaries, the nuclear balance between the United States and Russia remains a cornerstone to global non-proliferation. That's why each member of the Senate must determine if he or she believes this treaty will make our Nation safer. We can only do so if we have all the information about the treaty, and we can only make it better if we have the opportunity to fully amend the treaty.

During debate, we were repeatedly told that amending the treaty would kill it. That's just not true. Going back and forth on treaties is not new. As with the original START, which was signed in 1991, the U.S. Senate did not accept the first version and required that a better treaty be created.

We offered amendments that would have simply required that Russia be more involved in the changes this treaty will require, stressing the importance to the Russian government to create a safe global atmosphere similar to the United States. Those amendments were rejected. Only two amendments, one about modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and one stating that missile defense will proceed, were accepted by unanimous consent. The other amendments were either not considered or failed. It is now up to the Russian Duma to consider the suggested changes by the Senate's amendments and approve them or not. Both countries should be willing to work hard on this front and the best treaties, just like legislative bills, are those that are thoroughly considered by all involved with a willingness to comprehensively address all concerns and needs.

Beyond the issues of Senate processes, I have concerns about certain provisions in this treaty. It is impossible to fully consider this treaty without being able to review the full negotiating record, which has not been provided to all senators. Summaries have

been provided, but summaries do not include the specific information on how the full implementation of this treaty will be done.

As a founding member of the Senate ICBM Coalition, I strongly believe that all three legs of the nuclear triad--missiles, submarines, and bombers--must be maintained in order to retain a highly reliable and credible deterrent nuclear force. This need is even greater as we potentially draw down some of our nuclear forces through the New START treaty. I have worked with other members in the ICBM Coalition and with the administration to encourage them to ensure the treaty does not harm the triad. I appreciated the information provided by the administration on the treaty and the opportunity to meet on this issue during the floor debate. However, I remain deeply concerned about the implications the treaty will have on our country's national security, particularly its potential effects on the current missile force structure. Without the specific information on how the administration is going to implement the treaty and concrete assurances that the current missile force structure of 450 deployed and nondeployed silos be maintained, I remain skeptical of this agreement.

F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY, helps the United States maintain one leg of the triad by operating part of the ICBM force. It is my obligation as a Senator from Wyoming to know what effects this treaty will have on the missile defense missions in my home state. I also respect and watch out for the servicemembers in the 90th Space Command and 20th Missile Command who work hard to ensure our country has a strong missile defense. I have not yet been able to get a firm commitment from my Senate colleagues and the administration on a concrete number of missiles that will be maintained under this treaty.

Furthermore, the treaty will require unilateral reductions from the United States with no similar requirements for Russia. Instead, the Russian government is actually given room to build up its nuclear forces with more modern capabilities.

Regardless of this agreement, the United States has not thoroughly addressed the modernization of our country's nuclear capabilities. I have spoken with those involved in the treaty negotiations regarding U.S. modernization. I was told that the modernization efforts are in the works and the funding for these activities is planned. I support this more focused modernization approach. Part of the need for U.S. modernization is to address our Nation's tactical weapons capabilities. As currently written, the treaty will leave Russia in a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. This is disconcerting and modernization must be a priority.

I have concerns about verifiability as well. Former Secretary of State James Baker has described the treaty's verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. If the United States is going to make reductions to our capabilities under this treaty, we should ensure that Russia is doing the same and following the treaty as closely as our country will. We should not settle for some verification--we must require full verification. Second best will do the United States no good in terms of intelligence and response capabilities.

Back in 2002, I traveled to Russia with the University of Georgia to talk about nonproliferation. At that time, I expressed serious concerns not only about Russia's capabilities to secure their nuclear complex, but also to ensure that their nuclear scientists and their knowledge did not become available to bad actors like al-Qaida. Ensuring that Russia continues to keep their capabilities and know-how secure is imperative and cannot be left to second best.

Our two nations may approach nuclear agreements with different goals, but the fact that the United States and Russian governments maintain a dialogue is a highly positive fact. We need and want the cooperation of our counterparts in Russia in both bilateral and multilateral efforts. This is highlighted in the United Nations Security Council discussions on nuclear weapons development in Iran, North Korea, and other actors.

We want and need to create a safer world while maintaining our defensive capabilities for ourselves and our allies. By forcing debate on this treaty during the lame duck session, I do not believe we were able to fully address all concerns in the detail that was warranted. We needed to be sure the treaty does what we expect it to do without any surprises. I am not convinced we will not see any surprises in the future. Thus, I voted against the New START treaty.

Mr. President, I want to share with you a story of Thanksgiving that touched my heart. I am doing it just before Christmas to have you think about the effect of holidays on people away from home and especially troops stationed away from home and something you might do on a very small scale.

Two years ago, a barber in Cheyenne, WY, was cutting the hair of a young man from F. E. Warren Air Force Base and asked him what he was going to do for Thanksgiving. The airman guessed he would be spending it on the base. The barber, Glen Chavez said, Why don't you have Thanksgiving with my wife and I? Then Glen decided he better tell his wife. When he did she said, ``Glen, I know you. It won't be just one and it won't be limited to a dozen. I'll help, but we need to find someplace bigger than our home.'' So Glen asked the Masonic Lodge if he could use their building. They said yes and Glen with the help of some friends fed 300 people from the base. Yes, the base serves a Thanksgiving dinner, but it is not the same if you eat it in the same mess hall you eat in every day. Chavez said he started the event to combat the loneliness that many members of the military feel when they are away from their families during the holidays

The dinner was such a success that Glen decided to invite even more for the next year and to have more of the community involved. I am sure there is not a base and city anywhere that has the degree of cooperation and concern as Cheyenne and Warren Air Force Base. For example, people from the base help construct Habitat for Humanity homes. The school district built a new school on the base that also has kids attend who do not live on the base and have no military connection. The mix benefits everyone. Glen spent the year getting ready for this event speaking and enlisting the Chamber of Commerce and speaking at Lions, Rotary, and Kiwanis, to name a few.

So this year was the Second Annual Salute to our Troops. Steve Sears of Cheyenne Stitch donated T-shirts for the volunteers. The fire department cooked turkeys. They deep fried seven an hour for the 24 hours before the meal. A service club cooked 750 pounds of potatoes and mashed them. People from all over the community baked pies and cakes. Dozens of other volunteers helped out. Businesses donated door prizes. One prize was a 40-inch HD TV. This Thanksgiving they served over 500 people.

This year there was publicity to be sure all were invited. Posters went up all over the base and town. Some of that publicity made it to the blogosphere nationally. Glen got calls from 14 States commenting on the good idea and checking to see if they could duplicate it. Many who called told of personal difficulties, some with tragic endings, that this kind of an event can perhaps prevent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an article about the event from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle to be printed in the Record. I want to thank Glen Chavez, the barber, for his idea and his ability to turn a dream into reality. Thanks also to all who made the dinner and appreciation of our troops possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Joe Moore to serve as the U.S. marshal for the district of Wyoming. I was pleased to see that the Senate has given this nomination full and fair consideration. I support Joe Moore's nomination for this important position for Wyoming and am confident that he will do a great service in his capacities as U.S. marshal.

Joe Moore is currently the director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security--a position he has served in since it was created in 2003. During his time with the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, he worked closely with State, local, and Federal officials to respond to and coordinate responses to several major natural disasters. Director Moore has also bolstered Wyoming's homeland security efforts and improved State and local law enforcement activities statewide. Director Moore is a graduate of Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, and prior to his service with the State of Wyoming, he spent 32 years serving in Federal law enforcement.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for advancing this nomination. The U.S. Marshals Service has a long, distinguished history in our State, and I applaud Director Moore's confirmation to head this agency in Wyoming.