Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to make an announcement from the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to share my joy as in morning business.

Mr. President, I got an early Christmas present on the day it was expected! On Wednesday, December 15, Allison Quinn McGrady was born to my daughter Emily and husband Mike. I have been able to hold each grandchild on the day they were born. This baby, Allison, was a bit more difficult. I voted in committee and four times on the floor and made a mad dash for Dulles Airport. I flew to Denver. I rented a car and drove to Cheyenne, WY. I got to the hospital. It was late enough all the desks were shut down. I found my way to the maternity ward and got help to find the right room and once again got to hold another grandchild on the day she was born. There is no greater feeling of wonder and awe and appreciation on this planet than to hold another generation in my hands. To welcome a new life to this Earth is always breathtaking--but the thrill a grampa feels is indescribable--it is a feeling--it is incredible love and is only known to those who are also grandparents.

As I hold her and she tests this new world with eyes that recognize little, but absorb sights by the moment; as mouth and tongue explore a new atmosphere; as a tiny hand with small fingers opens and closes in a new freedom; I watch changing expressions as tiny ears hear sounds that have been muted before. I now have some instant replay memories of that little face and a moving hand and all those blankets and the tiny stocking cap to hold body heat, locked in my mind. She was 6 pounds 12.5 ounces and 19 inches long. Oh, to see such a miniature person and such a huge miracle! The wonder of life!!!

My own first child came into the world almost 3 months early. We didn't get to hold her for over 2 months. We could only watch as she struggled for life. and I am often doing little instant replays in my mind and thanking God for that and the other opportunities he's given me--from finding Diana who became my wife, to learning about prayer with our first child--the daughter who was born premature, who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is--then the birth of our son, then

the birth of our youngest daughter, who just had this baby. And to the birth of my grandson, Trey, and then his sister Lilly--both born to son Brad and his wife, Danielle--followed closely by Mike and Emily's Megan, who just became ``the big sister'' of Allison.

The call to let me know I was a grampa again came from 3-year-old Megan Riley McGrady, who enthusiastically said, ``I'm a big sister.'' Gramma wanted the phone to give me some details, but big sister said, ``No, I'm talking to grampa.''

About 6 weeks ago Megan started pointing to her mom's tummy and saying, ``That's my sister Allison.'' They are not sure where Megan came up with the name, but she stuck with the same name all the time-- and the new baby looked like an Allison, so Mike and Emily named her Allison and gave her a good Irish middle name of Quinn.

Shortly after our first grandchild was born I found a message on my answer-phone from our youngest daughter who simply said, ``Remember me? I used to be the baby of the family!'' So, now, Diana's and my youngest child, the ``baby of the family'' has had another baby! Emily and her husband, Mike McGrady met at the University of Wyoming. Mike fortunately broke his family's Florida University Gator tradition to come to the University of Wyoming, but it was part of God's plan. Emily and Mike fell in love and got married. Emily worked for the university while Mike went to law school. He clerked for Federal Circuit Judge Terry O'brien and now works in a private practice. Three years ago they called to ask what we were planning for Memorial Day and suggested we might want to be near them for the birth of a grandchild. The Senate was on recess and we were nearby. We were in Wyoming when each of the other two grandchildren were born. This time I wasn't so lucky. I was a nation away, but got back to hold Allison that first day too.

I ask to be called Grampa! That is not Grandfather--that would be too stilted for me. The name is also not Grandpa. That's a great title, but still too elevated. Grampa is spelled with an M and no D--Grampa. My grampa was a most memorable person to me. My Grampa Bradley took me on some wonderful adventures. He taught me a lot--fishing, hunting, and work. He believed in work. When I was 4, he ``let'' me help him plant and water trees. He showed me how to chop sagebrush and make flagstone walks. He covered up holes he encouraged me to dig--he covered them so people wouldn't drive a car into them. That was when I was 7. Later he taught me how to spade a garden and mow and trim a lawn ``properly.'' When I was a teenager, he even showed me the point in life when you are supposed to start carrying ``the heavy end of the log.'' He liked to be called Grampa--and I am now delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name. In my opinion, Grampa is the greatest title anyone can have! And I wish I could adequately share with you the joy in my heart!

Allison, I want to pass on to you your Great Gramma's admonition: ``Do what is right. Do your best. Treat others as they want to be treated.'' I use that guideline every day and expect everyone on my staff to measure legislation and case work requests by it too. Now, because of you and Trey and Lilly and Megan, I have an additional measure for myself. I don't ever want my grandkids to say, ``My Grampa could have fixed that, but he didn't.''

Allison, I hope I am around to see a lot more of you, to listen to you, to watch as you discover, learn, play, and grow--to get to know you--and especially to visit with you, to hear your dreams, your ideas, your puzzlements, to comfort you through difficulties, and to encourage you in whatever you try. But in case I am not around I have a few things to pass on to you that I hope you will remember and, hopefully, pass on to your children.

Be proud of your reputation. That is really all you have that is really yours--although you borrow part of it from those who went before--and you have a debt to those who follow.

Learn from the mistakes you make, but, more importantly, learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself, and it will save you a lot of grief. When you see something wrong say, ``I hope I never do that!'' and file away a plan to avoid it. And don't do anything you wouldn't want to read about on the front page of the newspaper.

Learn everything you can. Read everything you can. See everything you can. Listen for new ideas. Watch for things you can change. Everything can be improved ideas and thoughts as well as things. So while you are at it, invent something that will improve the world or that will help those around you.

The most important decision you will make in your life is marriage. My hope is that you will find someone who can be your best friend-- someone you miss when away and enjoy waking up with every morning, someone different enough to cover your weaknesses and strong enough to rely on you for your strengths, someone who shares your faith and someone mutually faithful.

Finally and most importantly, find faith in God. There will be times that will try you. With faith you can pray for help through the suffering, and with faith, God will always answer that prayer. No matter what you may have done, or what may have happened to you or to someone you love, there is always a way through the crisis. Don't try to live life on your own strength. No one has ever been that strong.

I thank God for helping me through open heart surgery 15 years ago so I might have this chance to hold you in my hands. I think of the Prayer of Jabez in Chronicles where he says, ``Lord, please continue to bless me, indeed,'' and to that I add my thanks for all the blessings, noticed and unnoticed, but especially for this new life.

Allison Quinn McGrady, Granddaughter, welcome to this world of promise and hope and faith and love! I am excited to have you in our lives!!

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, At the end of each session of Congress it has long been a tradition in the Senate to take a moment to express our appreciation and say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next Congress. One of those I know we will all miss in the months to come is Kit Bond.

I still remember the first time Kit Bond was drawn to our attention on a national basis. It was 1974 and then Governor Kit Bond was being honored for his work in state and municipal affairs by the Jaycees as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Americans of that year. He was in his thirties and he was already making his mark in the day to day life of his home State at a time when most people his age were still trying to find the ``right'' career to focus their energies on that would be both challenging and rewarding. After seeing him so recognized and realizing what it meant, I was inspired myself. I have been in awe of him ever since.

That honor that Kit received so many years ago proved to be one of the first to come his way during a four-decade career that now includes his service to the people of Missouri on the State and the Federal level. Over the years he has been a champion for the people of his home State and that is why they have elected and reelected him numerous times. Simply put, he has been an outstanding and highly effective legislator.

It is no secret. Kit has an amazing resume. Actually, it is more a record of success that lists what he has achieved and the results he has been able to obtain that reflect the work he has been a part of that has helped to make our country a better place for us all to live.

Looking back, Kit had already begun to make a name for himself when he graduated from the University of Virginia's law school. He was first in his class and had a number of opportunities awaiting him, some of which he explored, before he returned home to Missouri. Once there he began his career of public service as the State's assistant attorney general under former Senator John Danforth.

Soon thereafter Kit won his first statewide race when he was elected to serve as State Auditor. Two years after that, he became the State's first Republican to serve as Governor since the days of World War II. He was also the youngest Governor the State had ever had.

As Governor he learned a lot of lessons that stemmed from being a Republican Governor with a general assembly with 70 percent Democratic majorities in both Houses. He has commented that those days taught him a great deal about the meaning of bipartisanship. That is why, when he ran for and won a Senate seat, he soon became known for his ability to work with all of his colleagues on a long list of issues.

Over the years, for example, he has been a tireless supporter of our Nation's military. He has also been a fighter for our veterans and their right to the benefits they have earned through their service.

Another issue close to his heart has been the need to increase the availability of safe and affordable housing and improve the infrastructure of Missouri and the rest of the Nation.

These and many other issues that Kit has taken up during his career reflect his belief in the importance of doing everything we can today to make our tomorrows better for our children and our grandchildren-- since their future is ours, too.

I know I am not the only one who will have a moment from time to time next year when I will wish Kit was still around here, walking around with that trademark smile of his, caught up in yet another battle for something he believed in, something he knew would be important to the people of Missouri and the future of our Nation.

Fortunately, whenever we feel the need for a little of his advice or an observation or two we will know where to find him--just down the street, back home in Missouri.

Now that this chapter of Kit's life has ended, I have no doubt another will soon begin. As Kit pointed out, ``there are many ways to serve'' and ``elective office is only one of them.''

As he leaves the Senate, I would like to thank him for his willingness to serve; his wife Linda for her support and encouragement along the way; his son Sam for his heroic service in our Armed Forces; and all the members of his family who stood behind him over the years.

Diana and I send our best wishes and heartfelt appreciation to them all. We especially want to thank Kit and Linda for their friendship and for all they have meant to this Senate family of ours that extends from one corner of our Nation to the other.

Keep in touch. We will always enjoy hearing from you with your thoughts about whatever we happen to be taking up on the Senate floor. Good luck and God bless.

Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress it has long been a tradition in the Senate to take a moment to express our appreciation and say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next Congress. One of those I know I will miss who will be heading home to North Dakota to begin the next chapter of his life is Byron Dorgan.

Byron was raised in the ranching and wheat growing region of North Dakota in the town of Regent. Looking back, he has often said that he graduated in the top 10 of his high school class. ``There were nine of us,'' he then adds with a smile.

Growing up in a community that was so heavily involved in agriculture gave him an early taste of what rural life is all about. He experienced firsthand the importance of farming to his home State and the hard work associated with taking good care of the land and the resources it provides. He saw the way people who live on farms schedule their days-- working from sunrise to sunset, going from task to task knowing there was always more work to be done than there were hours in the day. It was a lesson about the true meaning of hard work that would stay with him throughout his life and help direct his efforts and his service in the Senate.

One issue we shared an interest in and worked together on for years has been sales tax fairness. Byron took his experience as a former tax administrator and I used my background as an accountant to focus our work on the issue. Byron's understanding of our tax system and how it must work efficiently to provide the government with the resources that are needed to fund its operations was very impressive. That should come as no surprise to anyone since he had been appointed the tax commissioner of North Dakota at the age of 26, which made him the youngest constitutional officer in the State's history.

We also worked together on the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. We hope to change our current policies there because for 40 years they have failed to bring about the results we hope to achieve. It was clear to us both that if we wanted to bring our democratic ideas to Cuba to effect the changes we wanted to achieve, we had to find another way to do it. Fortunately, Byron's leadership style and his speaking ability were again a great addition to the effort and helped to win us the support we needed to get things rolling.

Looking back on these and other issues, it is clear that Byron's career has been guided by the lessons he learned as he was growing up about the importance of hard work and always giving your best to the task at hand every day. That is why you will always find him fighting for the needs of rural America and promoting a sense of fairness and equity in our tax system. There can be little doubt that he has accomplished a great deal during his service in the Senate. He has been a champion for rural America, and farmers and ranchers not only in North Dakota but all across the country have been grateful for his efforts and the results he has been able to achieve.

I don't know what Byron has planned as he begins the next chapter of his life, but I am certain we have not heard the last from him and his wife Kim. They have been a team over the years as they have worked together for the people of North Dakota. They have made a difference, and they have a great deal to show for their efforts.

In the coming session, I know we will all miss Byron's effective way of speaking and addressing the concerns of the people of his State. He has a great sense of humor, and his ability to present the case for ``his side'' has won many an argument--some of them before they had even begun.

Good luck, Byron. Keep in touch. We will always be pleased to hear from you.

George Voinovich

Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress, as is our tradition, we take a moment to say goodbye and express our appreciation to those Members who will be returning home at the end of the year. I know we will miss them and the contributions they have made over the years to the debates and deliberations they have participated in on the Senate floor and in committee. One retiring Member I know I will especially miss is George Voinovich.

If ever it could be said of someone that they have never lost touch with their roots, it would be said of George. George was raised on Cleveland's east side, and he still lives there. His dad was an architect, and his mother was a schoolteacher. For his own part, until he was in his teens, George was determined to be a doctor. As he grew up, he found that he didn't get along very well with science, so right about then his direction and his focus changed. Fortunately for Cleveland and all of Ohio, George then decided that someday he would run for mayor and for Governor, which put him on the path that brought him years later to the U.S. Senate.

Those were big dreams for someone who up until then had only his success as high school class president to show on his political resume. That was also the time when his fellow classmates voted him most likely to succeed. It must have served as his inspiration because he proved them right. Over the years George proved to be a success at just about everything he set his mind to. That helped him to accomplish just about all that he had predicted and much, much more.

As any observer knows, one of the constant themes that runs through George's political career has been his determination to be a good steward of the resources we have been blessed to receive. It unsettles him to see waste of any kind, especially when it comes to our budget and the funds taxpayers all across the country send to Washington to run our government.

At each post he has served--mayor, Governor, and now, in the Senate-- people have looked to him for his leadership and his willingness to make the tough choices that must be made if we are to provide our children with a fair chance to live their own version of the American dream. George has warned us more than once. If we continue to spend so much of our children's future resources, we will leave them with a huge debt and an economy so weak and sluggish as to offer them little hope of ever freeing themselves from it. We ought to listen to him and take his advice--for our sake and theirs.

George has been a remarkable public servant, and he has served at many different levels of government throughout his career. I know he would be the first to say he wouldn't have been able to do all that without the person he calls the greatest blessing he has received in life by his side. That person is his wife Janet, who has been his greatest source of support and guidance for 48 years. Together they have made a difference wherever they have been.

In the years to come, I will always remember and admire all you did as Governor of Ohio with such a perfect First Lady by your side. I have a hunch you were such a great vote-getter because you had an advantage--a lot of people voted for you because they were also voting for her.

Looking back, we both served as mayors in our home States. When we did we had to find a way to pay for everything. That is why I always had an appreciation for the way you examined every detail of each issue through the lens of your background and how the people back home would feel about it.

Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you both and our thanks and appreciation for all you have done for Ohio and the Nation during your many years of public service. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Keep in touch. You'll be missed. It just won't be the same around here without you.

Mr. President, it is always a bittersweet moment when the end of a session of Congress draws near and it becomes time for us to say goodbye to those of our colleagues who will be returning home at the end of the year. We know we will miss them when the next session of Congress begins not only for their many contributions to the day-to-day work of the Senate but for their friendship and the good advice they have provided to us for so long as we deliberated issue after issue on the Senate floor.

I can't think of anyone who better fits that description than Bob Bennett. Bob was born in Utah, a member of a family who was very active in their community and the government. Bob was therefore blessed with some great role models early on in his life. He soon found he had a talent for business and a great understanding of the needs of businesspeople all over the State and around the Nation. Because of his insights and his ability to promote his good ideas and products, he took his company from a 4-person shop in 1984 to an $82 million company just a few years later with more than 700 newly created staff. With today's economy we can really appreciate that--that is a lot of jobs.

From there he decided to take on the challenge of a run for the Senate. As we all know, that first run for the Senate is never easy as it takes more than the vote of a community to make it happen. You have to take your case to every corner of the entire State. That means putting a lot of miles on your car and getting to know people from every city, town, and neighborhood.

It wasn't an easy bid for office that brought Bob to Washington. But, in the end, he proved to have what it takes to be a successful candidate. He had a vision for the future of Utah and the United States, a willingness to work hard, and a sense of humor. He took his job and the position he holds of Senator very seriously, but he was never one to take himself too seriously. In fact, he sees his job principally in terms of what he can do to help the people of Utah who elected him.

That is why, when he arrived in Washington, he immediately established a reputation as one of the Senate's most influential and sought after conservatives. Like me, he learned at a very young age that it was better to be a workhorse than a showhorse because there is no limit to what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit. Bob never cared about getting his share of the credit; he was always too busy working on the next issue and helping to form another compromise agreement to make sure things continued to get done.

Bob has left quite a legacy of achievement during his service in the Senate and a big pair of shoes for those who will follow him to fill. The media knows him not for an assortment of catchy one liners but for his ability to provide easily understood, readily accessible explanations about what was going on in the Senate--and why. No one has a better, clearer understanding of the inner workings of the Senate than Bob does. He has been such a valued resource, in fact, that many of us have sought him out more than a time or two just to get his take on things.

One of the things I will most remember about Bob is his love of gadgets. He was the first Senator to drive a high-mileage, low- emissions, gasoline-electric hybrid car. His interest stemmed from his awareness of the importance of conserving energy and the need to pursue solutions to our transportation problems that would make good and wise use of our resources.

He was also a leader in encouraging the Senate to tackle a very thorny issue--Social Security. Social Security is a lot like the weather: we all complain about it, we all know something needs to be done about it, and we are all sure we will know the right solution when it appears magically on the Senate doorstep. That wasn't what we should do, as Bob saw it. Then again, he was never one to shy away from getting the conversation started on just about anything.

In addition, as fellow small businessmen, we both took a great interest in proposals that were offered by both sides that would have caused problems for other small businessmen who were trying to do what they do best--make a profit and create more jobs. Thanks to Bob, our small business community had a champion in the Senate who was willing to take a stand against efforts to make owning and running your own business more difficult than it already is.

Those are just a few short snippets of Bob's record and the great success he has been able to achieve for his constituents and for our great Nation. During his service in the Senate, Bob was not only a part of our Nation's history, he helped to write a new chapter of it every day.

Before I close, I want to thank Bob for the great gift of his friendship. It has meant a great deal to me ever since that first day that Diana and I drove our van into Washington from Wyoming, unsure of what the future held for us but excited to begin this great new adventure in our lives. Bob made a difference for us from the first time we met him and Joyce, and we will always be grateful for that. We are very proud of them both and the difference they have made over the years in our lives and so many more. Thanks to their efforts together, the future will be a lot better and a more hopeful place for our children and our grandchildren.

I don't know what you have planned for the years to come, but one thing I am certain of--we haven't heard the last from you. That is a good thing. You have proven to be a great success at so many things. You have always been an important addition to our debates and deliberations, and you will be missed. It is good to know you will never be more than a phone call away.

Good luck in all your future endeavors, my friend. Keep in touch with us, and we will keep in touch with you. God bless.

evan bayh

Mr. President, soon the current session of Congress will be gaveled to a close. When that happens, it will also bring to a close the Senate careers of several of our colleagues. I know we will miss them and their spirited participation in our deliberations both in committee and on the floor.

I have always said that every Member who comes to the Senate has something to teach us--a message that only they could bring. Evan Bayh, who will be retiring at the end of this session is such an individual. I will always remember him as the young Governor who was able to serve in the Senate without losing sight of his ideals and principles both as a Hoosier and a parent and devoted and loving father.

Evan's career in politics began after he had clerked for a judge and practiced law for a while. An opportunity presented itself for him to run for office, and he did, winning an election that made him the secretary of state at the age of 30. In just 2 years he then became the youngest Governor in the Nation. He served in that capacity for 8 years, during which he made a strong reputation for himself as someone who was able to get things done.

Then, when term limits prohibited his run for reelection, he set his sights on a Senate seat and again found success. He ran a good campaign, took his case to the people, and they liked what they heard. They also knew him and what he stood for from his previous service to the State. They knew they could send him to Washington to the Senate, and he would champion what they believed in and fight for what was needed during his service there.

During his Senate career, you could always find him in the political center looking for a compromise agreement that would benefit everyone involved. I have always thought he would agree that it is better to get a half of the loaf than none at all, especially when the available half was the part that was needed the most.

We also agree on something else. When a Democratic win at the polls helped them to obtain control of the Senate, Bayh joined a breakfast group of Senators that was designed to get Republicans and Democrats more involved in a regular dialogue. He understood that by getting both groups to talk more and to get to know each other better in a context that was separate from our legislative duties, the Senate would be more productive and it would be easier to create and promote compromises between the two parties.

Now that Evan's Senate career has come to a close, he will be able to do something he has always looked forward to--spend more time with his family.

In the end, I think that is one of the things that Evan will always be known for--his great love of his own family and his understanding of the great love all of his constituents have for theirs. He believes everyone deserves their shot at the American dream, no matter their age, and the best way to do that is to be careful and cautious in our approach to any sweeping legislation and to ensure that we do everything we can so our children and grandchildren will have the same chance we have had to reach their goals and live their dreams.

Diana joins me in sending our best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement to Evan and his wife Susan. We wish them the best. I don't know what Evan has planned for the future, but one thing I feel certain of--we haven't heard the last from him. Good luck in all your future endeavors and in whatever you decide to do. Keep in touch.

George LeMieux

Mr. President, each year that brings a session of Congress to an end, it has long been a tradition for the Senate to take a moment to say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next session of Congress. One of those I know I will miss who will be heading home to Florida as his term concludes is George LeMieux.

It may surprise a lot of people to learn what a powerful presence George has been in the Senate. Although he did not serve a full term of 6 years, the months he has spent representing Florida have been very productive.

Simply put, George is an impressive individual who understands the importance of the work we must do to control spending in the years to come and, if we fail to do that, the impact it will have on our Nation and our children as they try to pursue their goals and live the American dream.

George grew up in Florida and, like me, he came to Washington, D.C., for his college studies. I graduated from George Washington University, and George graduated from Georgetown University. When he returned home to begin his career, his attendance at a high school reunion proved to be a turning point in his life when he met a former classmate named Meike who soon became his wife.

Years later, when an individual of George's talents and abilities was needed to complete the Senate term of Mel Martinez, the Governor knew who would be the right person for the job--George LeMieux. Soon, George was on his way back to Washington, looking forward to the opportunity to use his knowledge, skills, abilities, and professional experience to serve the people of his home State.

There were some eyebrows raised when he arrived. Some people thought he wasn't the best candidate for the job. Others thought he didn't have the background necessary to be a productive Senator. It didn't take him long before he proved them all wrong.

George not only hit the ground running, but he proved to be a natural and effective legislator. I don't think I have ever seen anyone who has had such an impact on the Senate after such a short time in office.

Over the past months, George has not only fulfilled his duties as a Senator, he has taken them to another level as he came up with good ideas for legislation, especially on the need to control spending and reduce the deficit which he has referred to as the ``single greatest threat'' to our future and the prosperity of our people.

That is the kind of Senator that George has been--strong, spirited, focused, and determined to speak out about the consequences that will come

from not being good stewards of our Nation's financial resources. His concern about our debt and the world we will leave behind for our children and grandchildren means even more to him today now that his Washington experience includes the addition of a fourth child--his first daughter.

I don't know what the future holds for you, George, but I do know that we will all be watching with great interest and expectation. You have already established a reputation for hard work that has earned you the friendship of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Whatever you decide to do, I am sure you know you can count on us to support and encourage you as you begin the next great adventure of your life. I am hoping it will be as the elected Senator from Florida. You can certainly run on experience. You have done more in months than some do in a career.

Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you and Meike. You have made a difference in just a few months, and we are sure there is more to come. Keep in touch when you return home. We will always be pleased to hear from you with your thoughts and suggestions about the legislation being considered by the Senate and what we can do to make it better.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Senator from New Hampshire as well.

I have had the pleasure over the years of serving with him and watching him and learning from him, as we did once again today. It is always amazing at these going away speeches that we learn things we did not learn about them during the 18 years they served. So I appreciate Senator McConnell's comments and some new insights there.

But I know Senator Gregg at one time moved from being the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to being chair of the Budget Committee, and that gave me the opportunity to be the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. For that I will always be grateful, and I hope I have made good use of the things he taught me when he was in that position.

Over the years as we have watched Senator Gregg in action in committee or on the floor we have all learned a lesson or two about how to be a more effective Senator. That is why when I look back on Senator Gregg's career, I will always think of him as one of the best of my Senate mentors. Over my 14 years in the Senate, I have learned more from him than almost anyone else.

I know no one knows better how this Senate operates and the procedural details than the Senator does. If I were on the other side of an issue and I saw Senator Judd Gregg getting up to plead his case, I know I would feel a sense of grave concern as I listened to him that would only increase in strength and intensity. It is always a worry for either side when he unfolds, if he might be on the opposite side. But, on the other hand, if he is on the floor to express support for my position, I would sit back, relax, and watch him in action with great relish.

He is a brilliant legislator and orator because he is always one to follow the admonition of Rudyard Kipling to ``keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.'' Once he had determined the right thing to do and how to do it, he would very calmly come up with a plan of action that made it happen, and then follow his strategy step by step without ever wavering from his plan.

In all my years of public life, as an observer and a participant, I do not think I have ever worked with anyone quite like him. No one speaks better off the cuff than he does. Even in a few casual remarks, his context and focus showcase his natural talent for the art. He knows the right words to say and how and when to say them for maximum impact. That means more often than not he knew how to present the perfect argument that could not be refuted. Year after year, that great talent has shown itself on the floor and in committee as he took a more and more active role in our deliberations on a long list of subjects, including but not limited to budget reform, education reform, and entitlement reform. He has, for instance, been a very strong supporter of the need for Congress to take action to address the problems currently facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This has been most recently evident as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and an active member of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

To put it quite simply, during his service in the Senate, he has been the younger generation's best friend, as he has done everything he possibly could to ensure that our children and grandchildren would have it as good as we did--if not better.

Senator Gregg has been a true leader on budget reform issues for his entire public service career. One of his greatest successes as the chairman of the Budget Committee was the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It was the first time in 8 years that the Congress took the necessary steps to curb entitlement spending and begin to put our country's fiscal house back in order. In his own words, Senator Gregg said the following on December 21, 2005:

This bill represents a reduction in the federal deficit of

nearly $40 billion over five years. Yes, there is more to be

done, but it is a step in the right direction . . . It is my

hope that the Congress will continue the hard work we have

done here, by seeking to reduce the rate of growth of

government at every opportunity. By focusing on how to make

government programs work more effectively and at a lower

cost. And by making fiscally responsible decisions about what

kind of economic future we want to leave to our children and

grandchildren.

As an accountant, Senate colleague, and his friend, I could not have been more proud of the bold step Senator Gregg took in addressing our Nation's deficit by drafting, promoting, and ultimately enacting the Deficit Reduction Act. We will miss his leadership on the Budget Committee.

As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, it was good to have a chance to see how well he worked to get things done in committee. For example, he worked well with Senator Kennedy on creating and passing the No Child Left Behind Act. He was able to bring together Senator Kennedy and President Bush to work on a common goal for our Nation's children and our country's future.

What he was able to accomplish during those days has made a difference and it will continue to do so for many years to come. Because of the work he has been such an important part of, countless Americans are living better, more rewarding, and more fulfilling lives all over the country.

Needless to say, the people of New Hampshire were very fortunate he was willing to serve in so many posts over the years. I have no doubt his insights on the law and how it affects the people back home come from his experience on every level of our government.

Since he first arrived in the Senate, with every trip home his constituents would tell him how the changes in the law were affecting them and their businesses and, if they are like the people of Wyoming, they also gave him some very valuable suggestions on what we could do in the Congress to address their concerns. I always tell my constituents to share their good ideas with me. It is my secret weapon and it really helps me to make a difference. I am sure it has been the same for him.

I do not know what he has planned for the coming years, but one thing I feel certain about: We have not heard the last from Judd Gregg. That will be a good thing for all of us, as well as the younger generation who is very concerned about the legacy we are leaving behind for them. As he has pointed out repeatedly, it would not be fair for us to continue to spend their inheritance to such an extent that they will be left with a huge deficit and an economy so slow and weak that they will not have any possibility of paying it off without a great deal of pain and difficulty. They are counting on us to do the right thing to ensure they have the same advantages and ability to access the American dream we have had.

There is an old Native American saying: We have not inherited the Earth from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children. If we follow this lead and use that frame of reference as our guide, we will be able to ensure their future will be as promising as they have every right to expect and demand.

As the end of the current session of Congress approaches, I know I am not the first, nor will I be the last to say thank you, Judd, for your willingness to serve the people of New Hampshire and the United States for so long and so well. Most of all, thank you for your friendship and for serving as such a great resource for us all during your service in the Senate.

Before I close, I know I would be remiss if I did not also say a quick thank-you to your wife Kathy. As we both know from serving in the Senate, there are a lot of late nights, trips both home and abroad with little notice, and a lot of other things we have to deal with because they come with the job. Our wives never complain, but we both know they have every reason to do so. They probably do not because they know, as well as we do, we could not do what we do without them by our side. They are our greatest supporters, our best friends, our most trusted political advisers, and the ones who always make sure we are heading in the right direction.

So while I am thanking you for your service, I think Kathy deserves a word of thanks too. Together you have been a remarkable team, and that is why New Hampshire is so proud to claim both of you as their own.

In the days to come, Diana and I will not be the only ones who will miss you and Kathy. Fortunately, we know where to find you--right near the ocean. We had so much fun there when we had the chance to explore it with you both earlier this year. The fishing was pretty good and the scenery was just magnificent. Just let us know when the fish are biting, and we will be there. Come to Wyoming anytime. Good luck in your future. Thanks for all you have done for us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I allocate to myself such time as I may need.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to S. 3991, the so-called Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I have a number of policy and constitutional concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them over the years, but I have never had the opportunity to work with the bill's supporters to address those concerns. Even though this legislation falls within the HELP Committee's jurisdiction, the committee has never held a hearing on the bill and has only marked it up without amendment or written report--and that was years ago--and this is not the same bill we are considering today.

An objective consideration of this bill reveals it is based on poorly reasoned policy. Over the last 7 years, the proponents of this bill have only brought it directly to the floor and purposefully circumvented the regular order of the Senate and its committee processes, perhaps because the scrutiny of that process would expose the multiple flaws in this legislation. Rather than addressing this bill on its merits, its proponents have decided, once again, to play the sound bite game. Their calculation is simple: Since this bill involves unions that organize among police and firefighters, they will continue to simply claim that anyone who opposes this bill is against police and firefighters.

Let us address that calculated untruth first. There is no one I know of--Republican or Democrat, supporter or opponent of this bill--who does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police, firefighters, first responders, and other public safety professionals. Their contributions to our communities are immeasurable, and our support of them is unwavering. However, this bill provides no direct benefit to any police officer, firefighter or first responder. It doesn't provide a dime in Federal money to any State, city or town to hire, to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel. In fact, it simply imposes costs that will make that result less likely. It is arguably one of the biggest and most dangerous unfunded mandates the Federal Government has ever imposed.

In fact, there are a number of law enforcement groups opposing this bill: the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all come out against S. 3991. I think we have to ask: If all these law enforcement groups oppose the bill, is it a good idea to pass it in the last days of a lameduck Congress?

Plain and simple, the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. You see, while unionization in the private sector has been on a historical down trend, unionization in the public sector has been increasing. In 2009, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were unionized compared to 7.2 percent in the private sector. Government workers are now five times more likely to belong to a union. For the first time in our country's history, the majority of union members are public sector employees, not private sector employees. Public sector unions have been the only area of growth for unions for many years, and as we all know, organizations need to grow to survive.

Let me now turn for a moment to some of the serious and fundamental problems with this legislation. For over 70 years, a hallmark of our Nation's labor policy has been the principle that employment and labor relations between a State, city or town, and its own employees, should not be a matter of Federal law, but a matter of local law. That bedrock principle is not only rooted in our national labor policy, it is firmly fixed in our Constitution and our traditions of federalism. Yet today the proponents of this bill seek to overturn this hallmark principle and to radically change decades of unbroken Federal law and policy. The enormity of this change is only matched by the prospect that it could occur as a result of total disregard for processes of the Senate and the complete absence of any meaningful opportunity for modification.

You would think the Senate would consider such a bill only after careful examination and due deliberation. Sadly, you would be wrong. This legislation has not had a Senate Committee hearing or markup this Congress or the two Congresses before this one. The HELP Committee has never held a hearing on this bill. The bill grants enormous power over States to a virtually unknown Federal agency. Yet we have never so much as asked a representative sampling of State officials for their views, nor have we ever even been informally asked the Federal agency involved if it feels up to the job we would impose on it. These shortcomings alone show that this bill is being pushed not because it is good policy, but because some see it as expedient politics.

This bill would require that every State, city and town with more than 5,000 residents open its police, firefighters and first responders to unionization. It would impose this Federal mandate not in the absence of any State consideration of this issue, but in direct opposition to the legislative will of several States. Proponents of this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it actually does little to disturb State laws. That is simply not the case.

This bill would expressly overturn the law in 22 States. In fact, 16 States have specifically considered and rejected legislative proposals similar to the law that would be federally imposed under this bill in recent years. Some States, such as Wyoming, have chosen to either extend collective bargaining in a more limited manner than the bill before us would mandate, or not to extend it at all.

In this second chart, proponents of this bill have told Senators from States that do have ``full'' public sector collective-bargaining laws that this bill would not change anything in their respective home States. However, labor experts have identified at least 12 of those States where the viability of one or more provisions of their own current State law would be in question if this bill were enacted. That is the yellow States. Supporters of the bill base their argument on a provision which allows the Federal Board that will be ruling over all these States to ignore instances where the State law is not as broad as the Federal mandate if ``both parties'' agree that it is sufficient. Make no mistake, this provision is completely hollow.

First, there are hundreds of thousands of ``parties'' that will have the authority to agree or disagree about

the sufficiency of a State's law. Every public safety officer and his or her employer will have this authority. The term ``public safety officer'' is so broadly defined in this bill that many employee groups that may surprise you meet the definition, such as paramedics, lifeguards, security guards and more. What are the odds of all of these groups agreeing to look the other way? Further, anyone who has ever been a party to negotiation knows about leverage. The ability to place one phone call and have an entire State's law on a subject overturned and taken over by the Federal Government is some of the most powerful leverage I have ever heard of.

Let's be completely clear about what this legislation would do. A vote for this bill is a vote to overturn the law and the democratic will of the citizens of many of our States, and to invalidate the democratic action of their voters and legislators. This is very important. That is why mayors of major U.S. cities that already provide collective bargaining rights also oppose the bill. New York City Mayor Bloomberg, along with the mayors of Boston, Cleveland, Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Philadelphia and Mesa, AZ, all wrote to the Senate yesterday asking us not to enact this poorly thought out bill. And it is not just the chief executives objecting. Major newspapers across the country such as the Denver Post, the Richmond-Times Dispatch and the Washington Post have editorialized against this proposal. I ask unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

I formerly served as the mayor of Gillette, WY, a city of 20,000 people. As I look around this Chamber there are too few here that have any experience with trying to balance a budget for a city or town, which may explain why this unfunded mandate proposal is being brought up with so little attention given to how it will increase the dire financial situation of States and municipalities.

A recent report by the National League of Cities found that municipalities will face a shortfall between $56 billion and $83 billion from 2010 to 2012. Headlines across the country confirm that city leaders are responding to deficits with layoffs, furloughs, payroll deductions and cutting city services, all of which will impact police, fire and emergency services departments. This week it was Camden, NJ, laying off 383 employees, including 67 firefighters and up to 180 police officers.

Another survey found 87 percent of city finance officers said that they were less able to meet the city's fiscal needs in 2010, than a year before. The outlook for States is just as dire, especially considering that Federal stimulus dollars, which many States have used to partially fund budget gaps, will run out after 2012. States will face an estimated $300 billion budget shortfall for 2011 and 2012. And the extent to which States and municipalities are facing underfunded public employee pensions is truly staggering. A PEW Center on the States report out this year pegs it at a $1 trillion gap.

During this downturn cities across America are struggling to maintain solvency. Unlike the Federal Government, they cannot print money--they have to actually balance their budgets. Here is the reality. Without regard to pay or benefits, just the administrative costs alone of collective bargaining represent a very significant line item that Congress now proposes to force on States, cities and towns. Towns, particularly small towns, that currently do not have the resources to negotiate and administer multiple collective-bargaining agreements would have to now hire and pay for these additional services. Towns and cities that do not devote the long hours of municipal time to the complicated process of bargaining, and overseeing multiple union contracts, and to administering contract provisions and resolving disputes under a collective-bargaining system will be required to spend that time. Nobody should be fooled. Those additional, manpower and man- hour requirements are enormously costly and burdensome. This bill would impose those costs by Federal mandate, but would not provide a single penny of Federal money to help offset those costs.

As a former mayor, and as the only accountant here in the Senate, I would remind my colleagues about the cold realities of municipal finance. If you increase municipal costs you have only two ways to meet those additional costs--either increase revenues, or decrease services. This bill will unquestionably place many municipalities in the difficult position of choosing between raising State and local taxes, or decreasing and eliminating local municipal services.

Mere consideration of this bill today reveals that many in this body remain sadly out of touch with the real needs of our constituents and the real fiscal problems that their cities and towns face every day. With stagnant or declining property values and an endless parade of increasing fixed costs, don't our cities and towns already have enough on their plate without the Federal Government imposing more new costs through this mandate?

Since the legislation before us has not gone through committee process, I have a number of amendments I will have to offer here on the floor. I always like having this type of legislation go through the committee, so we can discuss the bill and amendments in a smaller group. I always like doing it in committee. It is a smaller group, more understanding of what the different issues are. It also gives you the chance to kind of grow an idea, to get the germ of an idea and grow it between several people who are interested. That doesn't happen on the floor, it is all up or down. But I will have a number of amendments I will have to offer. These amendments are directed toward protecting the fiscal health of our communities that fall under this mandate, ensuring the integrity of public safety and service organizations, and preventing union abuse of public sector employees, among other issues.

But these problems represent only the tip of the iceberg. If this body decides to take this issue up today and spend the next week debating it, you will hear more detail on my concerns and those that will be raised by other Senators opposed to this proposal who have also never had any chance in the process for amendments.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, S. 3991.

Exhibit 1

December 7, 2010.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: As mayors of cities who

oversee large public safety agencies and who collectively

bargain with our public safety unions, we are concerned about

the lack of examination of the Public Safety Employer-

Employee Cooperation Act of 2010 (PSEECA). We believe that

this bill, like other versions in previous years, could have

a profound impact on public sector collective bargaining

negotiations and on state and local taxpayers throughout the

country, yet there have been no Senate committee hearings on

PSEECA since its first introduction in 2001. The uncertainty

caused by the PSEECA will certainly lead to litigation at a

time when our cities can least afford such expenses.

More broadly, the entire collective bargaining structure

under which law enforcement and emergency response personnel

operate in our cities could be placed in jeopardy. For

example, in New York City, the decision to discipline a

police officer involved in a shooting incident, or to

determine the circumstances in which drug testing must be

performed, resides with the Police Commissioner and is not

subject to the bargaining process; this ensures full

accountability of the head of the police force to the public.

It is of grave concern to all of our cities that important

local decisions such as these would be lost as a result of an

improper federal finding.

PSEECA also undermines settled law in jurisdictions that

have negotiated with unions for decades. In cities like

Cleveland and Minneapolis, where there is a strong history of

public employee collective bargaining, this legislation runs

counter to long established principles of local control over

the operations of municipal government. PSEECA risks too much

for our cities and adds legal and fiscal strain during

especially difficult economic times. In light of how little

has been done to assess the impact of this bill nationwide,

we urge you not to proceed with this disappointing and

potentially far-reaching maneuver.

Sincerely,

Thomas M. Menino,

Mayor, City of Boston.

Frank G. Jackson,

Mayor, City of Cleveland.

John W. Hickenlooper,

Mayor, City of Denver.

Scott Smith,

Mayor, City of Mesa.

R.T. Rybak,

Mayor, City of Minneapolis.

Michael R. Bloomberg,

Mayor, City of New York.

Michael A. Nutter,

Mayor, City of Philadelphia.

Jerry Sanders,

Mayor, City of San Diego.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Johanns amendment that would repeal a provision in the health care reform law that, if not repealed today, will impose significant burdens on small businesses across this country.

Repealing this provision has the support of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Even the President has commented that this provision is onerous on small businesses and warrants immediate adjustment.

Starting in 2012, the new health care law will require that all businesses purchasing $600 or more in property or services from another entity, including corporations, must provide the vendor and the Internal Revenue Service with a tax information return. This new government mandate will impose significant burdens on both small and large businesses, and taxpayers' costs will increase as a result of accumulating the information and preparing the tax forms necessary to comply with this expanded mandate.

Imagine if you are a freelance writer and you buy a new laptop. Well, now you have to send form 1099 to Apple and to the IRS or be labeled a tax cheat. Oh, and you will need the Apple taxpayer identification number too, so do not forget to ask the salesman for that.

This new reporting requirement hits small businesses hardest because they typically do not have in-house accounting departments and have to hire outside help. Every penny a small business spends on these services is money they cannot spend on hiring new workers and expanding their business. Every hour a small business owner spends filling out these new tax forms is time he or she is not making a sale, manufacturing a product, or working with a customer.

I understand the challenges this can create for small business. Before I came to the Senate, my wife and I owned shoe stores in Wyoming. When you own a small business, you have to be the CEO, the bookkeeper, the salesman, and the person who cleans the bathroom.

Every hour I spent filling out government-mandated paperwork was an hour I could not spend selling shoes. Government mandates such as the new 1099 requirement have a real cost, and it is small businesses that will end up having to pay them.

This new 1099 reporting requirement is just one of many things in the new health care reform law that need to be reexamined immediately. Our small businesses need to be focused on creating jobs and helping our economy recover, not spending countless hours on new government paperwork burdens.

We all would do well to remember the claims of the sponsors of the health care reform law who said this new law would actually reduce the Federal deficit. Most Americans didn't believe those claims when they were made, and today they are seeing the first evidence of their falsity.

Today, when confronted with the nationwide opposition to this ill- conceived expanded information reporting policy, one of the leading proponents of the new health care law in the Senate is offering an amendment that will eliminate it, but it eliminates the revenues it produces. More importantly, his amendment makes no attempt to pay for the lost revenues. That means his amendment will further increase the Federal deficit.

While this may be the first time we see this, it certainly will not be the last. The funding for the entire health care law was built on a fiction of cost estimates and actuarial assumptions. As each of these provisions confronts the harsh reality of the light of day, we will see more and more of these provisions undone in the coming years. When millions of seniors across the country lose existing Medicare benefits and face escalating out-of-pocket costs, there will be an urgent push to restore these benefits. When hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies begin to close their doors because Medicare payment rates cause them to operate at a loss, Congress will move to undo those cuts, at a cost to the deficit. When the new insurance benefits are slashed as a result of formula gimmicks that will force automatic reductions in benefits, I suspect many of the supporters of the new law will argue for the urgent necessity of delaying these cuts.

We can make a statement right now to America's small businesses that we want them creating more jobs, hiring new employees, and growing their businesses--not worrying about what Washington will require of them next. Let's tell our small business men and women that we stand behind them, not on top of their backs, and let's repeal this new tax paperwork burden in a fiscally responsible way.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is close to passing legislation that includes three water settlements as well as funding to settle the Cobell and Pigford claims. I want to briefly discuss the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, which is included in the larger bill.

The Crow Tribe has water related claims against the United States and those claims need to be settled. While I believe it is necessary to solve legitimate water claims, I want to make clear that I do not support backdoor efforts to steal water from my home state of Wyoming.

In the West, we know that water is worth fighting for. It is a precious commodity, and there isn't enough of it to meet all of our State's needs. Just as other Western members work hard to protect their state's water rights, Senator Barrasso and I work to protect Wyoming's water rights. Some have suggested that Wyoming water users will be harmed by this bill. That is not the intention of the legislation. It is in place to settle water claims from the Crow Tribe. It is not intended to be a hidden effort to harm Wyoming water users.

Senator Barrasso worked closely with the Wyoming Attorney General's Office and the Wyoming State engineer to negotiate substantial changes to this bill to guard against unreasonable takings of Wyoming's water. My staff participated in some of the meetings where those changes were made, and after numerous discussions with water experts in Wyoming and here in Washington, I am convinced that this legislation will hold Wyoming's water users harmless.

While I remain concerned about the cost of this legislation and the fact that the proponents have bundled together distinctly different bills, on the specific issue of protecting Wyoming's water rights, there are numerous protections in the bill to ensure Wyoming's water users will not be harmed if this bill becomes law. Because of that, I am not objecting to the bill today.

Mr. President, the United States has one of the best food safety systems in the world. However, even the best of systems have room for improvement. That is why my colleagues and I worked together over the past year to produce a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Food safety is not a partisan issue. We all want the safest food supply possible and the Food Safety Modernization Act makes significant improvements in that direction.

This is not a perfect bill. If it were solely up to me, there are several provisions that I would have done differently. However, this bill provides real improvements for our food system by placing a greater emphasis on prevention and targeting government involvement to the areas of greatest need.

The American food industry is made up of hundreds of thousands of processors, distributers, and retailers of all sizes, both foreign and domestic. When you say ``food industry'' many think of the Nations largest food processors that carry the brand names with which we are familiar.

In truth, ``industry'' also consists of tens of thousands of small businesses across the country. It also includes over 2 million farmers, both large and small, in the United States that provide the food that we consume at our tables. This bill recognizes the diversity of all these individuals and organizations and protects their ability to continue to grow safe food for our families.

The bill also recognizes the vital role played by State and local officials. Our State officials are on the front lines when it comes to responding to food safety concerns and this bill makes sure that they will have the resources they need to do their jobs. Specifically, the bill provides training and education of State, local, and tribal authorities to facilitate the implementation of new standards under the law.

My colleagues, including Senators Harkin, Gregg, Durbin, Burr and Dodd, have recognized all these challenges in this process and have worked together to prepare a bill that makes improvements to all aspects of our food system.

I am particularly pleased with the efforts the group has made in the managers' package that focus on providing flexibility for small and very small food processors. This bill provides small processors additional time to comply with new food safety practices and guidelines. The bill also requires the FDA to publish user-friendly small entity compliance guides to assist firms with the implementation of new practices. This way, small businesses in the food system, know exactly how to plan to adopt any new practices that could apply to them.

This bill also protects farms. Farmers remain exempt from registration under the Bioterrorism Act and any new produce safety standards must consider the unique practices that farmers use to grow or market their food. This includes consideration for farmers that use specific conservation practices or grow organic foods under the Organic Foods Production Act.

Small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market directly to consumers are also not subject to registration under this bill. This ensures that individuals can continue to provide food to their communities through farmers markets, bake

sales, public events and organizational fundraisers. Some have confused this bill with provisions in other food related bills and it is not true that S. 510 regulates backyard gardens or potluck dinners. All across Wyoming, people grow their own food and contribute dishes to organizational fundraisers and this bill continues the practice of making sure those individuals aren't subject to federal regulation.

However, if the amendment tree is filled so amendments cannot be submitted, I will likely oppose any further cloture.

I want to again recognize and thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I look forward to considering this bill on the floor and appreciate those Members that have helped make this bill a bipartisan effort.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the paycheck unfairness bill that is before us. A better title for this bill should be the ``jobs for trial lawyers act.''

I am confident that there is no Member of this Senate who would tolerate paying a woman less for the same work simply because she is a woman. As husbands, fathers, and mothers of working women, I believe we all recognize the gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on gender. Congress has put two laws on the books to combat such discrimination--Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. These are both good laws that have been well utilized to combat discrimination where it exists, and I support the full enforcement of these laws. Businesses that discriminate against a female employee because of her gender must be corrected and penalized.

But what the majority is trying to push through here today is of a very different nature. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is actually a ``jobs for trial lawyers act.'' The primary beneficiary of this legislation will be trial lawyers. They will be able to bring bigger class action lawsuits--which usually result in coupons for the people that were disadvantaged--without even getting the consent of the plaintiffs, and they will have the weapon of uncapped damages to force employers to settle lawsuits even when they know they have done nothing wrong. The litigation bonanza this bill would create would extend even to the smallest of small businesses, only further hampering our economic recovery.

There are a number of other concerning provisions of this legislation, such as authorizing government to require reporting of every employer's wage data by sex, race, and national origin. Had this bill gone through committee markup under regular Senate order, we may have been able to address some of these concerns. But this bill--like so many other labor bills in the HELP Committee jurisdiction of this Congress--has circumvented regular order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of letters from a total of 44 groups opposing this legislation and 4 newspaper op eds.

Mr. President, the newspaper articles I have submitted for the Record were written by the editorial boards of the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post, while the other op ed, written by a guest columnist, appeared in the New York Times. I don't think any of these would be considered to be conservative newspapers, but they have taken a strong stand in the same direction and position that I have been speaking here.

The bottom line is that this legislation will insert the Federal Government into workplace management decisions like never before. This intrusion will benefit trial lawyers and harm job growth and employment, which will affect both women and men.

Supporters of this bill cite wage data that the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself says ``do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earning differences.'' In fact, studies show that if you factor in observable choices, such as part-time work, seniority, and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5 to 7 percent. Let me repeat: Part-time work, seniority, and occupational choice reduces the pay gap to between 5 and 7 percent. Some of these choices are certainly personal prerogatives, and I would not question the choices anyone makes with regard to family obligations or job security and the quality of fringe benefits, such as health, retirement, and child care. But to a large extent, this remaining gap is due to occupational choice.

It is unfortunate that this Congress has not done more to foster a job growth environment and improve job training programs, such as the Workforce Investment Act, which could train 100,000 people to be hired in skilled jobs--sometimes in the nontraditional roles. So instead of being a waitress, they might be a brick mason. We have heard that example in hearings. Such training under the Workforce Investment Act produces significantly higher wages, and that would prepare more women to enter higher earning occupational fields. Surely this would be a more reasonable solution

than a trial lawyer bonanza sure to disadvantage all employers and depress job growth to the disadvantage of all employees, which results in disadvantaged employees getting coupons while the trial lawyers keep most of the money.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this cloture vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 39.

Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today is about keeping a promise. The authors of the new health care law promised the American people that if they liked their current health insurance, they could keep it. On at least 47 separate occasions, President Obama promised: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.''

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has broken that promise. Earlier this year, the administration published a regulation that will fundamentally change the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. The reality of this new regulation is, if you like what you have, you can't keep it. The new regulation implemented the grandfathered health plan section of the new health care law. It specified how existing health plans could avoid the most onerous new rules and redtape included in the 2,700 pages of the new health care law.

This provision was a critical part of the new law. It allowed supporters to argue that current health insurance plans would be exempt from all of the rules and regulations created by the new law. Employers and health plans were told that the grandfathered protections would mean if you have coverage on the day the law passed, you could keep that coverage without having to make any major changes.

Employers and employees thought the bill would have cost-cutting measures, but now they find only cost increases. The new law will provide no relief to increasing costs until at least 2014. But this rule and its higher costs kick in now. Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses--the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent--will not be able to keep the coverage they have.

Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported costs as going up between 1 and 9 percent because of the mandates included in the new health care law. Couple this increase with inflation, and small businesses are looking at a 20-percent cost increase. I actually know something about small business; I used to run one.

I ran a shoe store in Wyoming. I stocked the shelves, worked the customers to fit shoes, ran the cash register. I placed the orders with suppliers. I did the accounting, I swept the sidewalk, I cleaned the toilets. I knew what it was like to worry about making payroll at the end of the month. I know firsthand about the struggles and challenges America's small businesses face. I understand what this regulation will do to small businesses across the country. Small businesses are struggling every day to find the resources to provide health insurance to their employees. Rather than making it easier for those businesses to continue to provide this coverage, the new regulation will mean that employers will simply drop their health coverage altogether. That is why I am so concerned about this grandfathered health plan regulation, and that is why I introduced the resolution we are debating today.

My resolution would force the administration to actually keep their promises. The resolution would overturn this grandfathered health plan regulation and allow tens of thousands of businesses across the country to keep their current plans. If we pass the resolution, millions of Americans will be spared from paying higher health care costs as a result of new Federal mandates. If we pass the resolution, small businesses across the country will not have to drop health insurance for their workers.

Congress created the Congressional Review Act we are using today specifically to overturn Federal regulations such as the one we are discussing. The sponsors of the Review Act recognized that too often Washington bureaucrats impose sweeping new regulations with little thought to the impact these changes will have in the real world. In particular, the Review Act was intended to protect small businesses across the country that are often most vulnerable to new government mandates and regulations.

That is precisely what happened with the grandfathered health plan regulation. The regulation writers went above and beyond what the law said and came up with a whole slew of requirements businesses must comply

with if they want to keep what they have. The regulation includes a long list of things that will disqualify businesses from being able to keep what they have. If a business does anything to try to keep costs under control, they lose their grandfathered status.

Earlier this year, when the grandfathered regulation was first published by the administration, I came to the Senate floor and warned of the negative impact this regulation would have on small businesses. This new regulation appears to ignore the impact it will have in the real world. It will drive up costs and reduce the number of people who have insurance.

I recently heard from Jim, an insurance agent in Illinois, who wrote to me and said:

My experience in the last few months is--maintaining

grandfather status to my group plans is all but impossible.

All my clients' renewal rates in September and October are in

excess of thirty percent. To keep grandfather status, the

group is limited in deductible changes and contribution

levels. The only option is for the employer to accept the

premium increase at the worst economic time in forty years.

They can't afford to keep the grandfather status and soon

won't be able to afford insurance at all. In my opinion, the

legislative goal was to make maintaining grandfather status

so restrictive, companies are forced out. It's working.

I have a whole slew of similar stories and I ask unanimous consent to have some of them printed in the Record.

Folks all over the country are just like Jim. Insurance agents are explaining to small businesses that they will be forced to choose either to absorb premium increases in excess of 15 percent or lose their grandfathered health plan status. By the administration's own estimate, up to 80 percent of small businesses will lose the right to keep what they have. Lots of companies pay 90 percent of the cost of their employees' and families' insurance. They were hoping to be grandfathered at least until 2014, to see exactly how damaging the whole bill would be. But we are experiencing 2014 now, with no help in cost cutting.

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council says it pretty succinctly. In a letter they wrote to me supporting S.J. Res. 39, they write:

Rather than helping small business owners and their

workforce keep their plans, it appears the rule has been

rigged to force most small businesses and their employers out

of grandfathered status.

The letter also reads:

The rule, as written, is in clear violation of President

Obama's promise that Americans would be able to keep the

health plans they currently have upon passage of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, and other business groups supporting this resolution have said: This rule will make it harder for employers to make changes that will hold down their health care costs. Large and small businesses will have few options for both keeping costs in check and maintaining the grandfathered status.

If employers do almost anything to help slow the growth in their health insurance costs, they will lose the limited protections against the expensive new mandates in the bill. It is worth noting that two pages in the law that create the grandfathered plans give infinite leeway to the bureaucrats who are writing the rule, and they took it. The law doesn't say anything about cost-sharing requirements or coinsurance rates. The administration made up all of these provisions and requirements. They didn't have to write these rules in a way that precludes half of Americans from keeping what they have.

Our economy is already struggling. It doesn't need more job killing. It doesn't need cost increasing government mandates. We are hearing from small businesses across the country which are already being forced to swallow large premium increases that will prevent them from hiring more workers. It is about the jobs. We need to create more jobs, not write more regulations that lead to less jobs. This bill was sold as letting people keep what they have. But the devil is in the details. Do a little digging and it is clear; Americans would not be able to keep what they have.

The simple truth is, because this new rule will drastically tie the hands of employers, few employers are expected to be able to pursue grandfathered status. I even have letters from people who have individual situations, and they are concerned as well. That means more than half of Americans who like what they have would not be able to keep it.

The final result of the new regulation will be that all Americans will eventually be forced to buy the kind of health insurance the Federal Government thinks they should have. Never mind they can't afford it. Never mind that employers will be less likely to hire new workers and probably even lay off workers. Simply put, this rule states: Washington knows best.

This new rule is pretty clear. If you like what you have, you can't keep it.

Later today, the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on the resolution that will help small businesses actually keep what they have. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and keep the promise that if Americans like the insurance they have, then they can keep it. That should be the bare minimum until at least 2014, so businesses and employers can assess the

damage from all the regulations combined--and there is a pile of them coming. Help is not in the bill until 2014, but the rule is for now. The big question is, Why weren't the cost-cutting measures included in the regulation?

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by both of the leaders on health care from the other side, but you can't have your own facts. You can't show significant changes as being the only thing that eliminates grandfathering.

If you look at the Federal Register, page 34,568, the last few paragraphs say: Any increase in a percentage cost-sharing requirement causes a group health plan or health insurance to cease to be a grandfathered health plan.

Another part says: Any increase in a fixed-amount, cost-sharing requirement other than a copayment--any increase in a fixed amount copayment. It doesn't say significant changes, it says any change.

I yield up to 10 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso.

I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Mr. President, I yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, while I am waiting for another speaker to come, I will make some additional comments.

Mr. President, I just wish to get a few things read into the Record. I have a list of 54 organizations that are supporting my resolution. They include the Latino Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition of Affordable Health Coverage, the Health Care Leadership Council, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, to name just a few of the 54.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed letters of support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Retail Federation, the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, all of which are in support of this and I suspect will be key voting this particular resolution.

The Chamber of Commerce, for instance, says:

The administration released an extremely complex regulation

that makes it virtually impossible for plans to maintain

grandfathered status, instead subjecting them to many

expenses and burdensome new requirements. In our view, this

regulation violates Congressional intent, and does not live

up to the promises of proponents of the new law.

NFIB, a small part of their letter says:

If required to comply with the administration's interim

final rule, millions of small businesses will be forced out

of the plans they know and like--

Which means their employees lose the plans they know and like.

The Associated Builders and Contractors say:

The grandfathered rule demonstrates a fundamental failure

of the Federal Government to understand the needs of small

businesses. With the current unemployment rate of 17 percent,

the construction industry cannot endure another cost increase

at the hands of the Federal Government. It is unfortunate

that the Federal Government continues to fail to provide

employers and their employees with health care solutions that

are practical or affordable.

Earlier, there were some mainstays of health care that--I think there was an aspersion I was getting rid of with my resolution. I want you to know that if the resolution passes, businesses will still be prohibited from discriminating against someone with preexisting conditions, businesses will still be prohibited from imposing annual limits on benefits, all plans will still be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits, all plans will still have to cover kids under the age of 26 on their parents' plan, all plans will still be prohibited from canceling coverage because of a paperwork error.

All those things will exist when this resolution passes, and this resolution needs to pass. All those things that I mentioned, preexisting conditions, annual limits, lifetime limits, children under the age of 26, and canceling coverage for paperwork errors, all those cost money. That is why the price is going up at the present time.

The price is going up at the present time. This was supposed to be cutting costs. Help does not arrive until 2014. But small businesses, particularly small businesses, are going to be required to meet this grandfathering rule now. They cannot afford the grandfathering rule now. Another thing I am objecting to is watching television and seeing an old favorite of mine, Andy Griffith, getting paid, at taxpayer expense, to tell us that this whole deal is excellent.

You saw the stack of regulations over there. They estimate there will be 100 pages of regulation for each page of that bill. There are 2,700 pages in the bill. That means there are going to be 270,000 pages of regulations. We do not legislate that way. We try and fill in those blanks. You do not even know what those blanks are going to hold yet, neither does small business.

They already know these are things that are going to drive up cost in the beginning, with no cost-cutting opportunity, and then the grandfathering rule kicking in right away, which means for 3 years, before they even know what some of those regulations are going to be, they are going to have to constrain everything in their organization within 15 points, as is pointed out, and we can expect the first year's increases to be even greater than the 15 points.

But they will try and stay with that grandfathered plan because it is what they can afford and it is what their employees like. So we are trying to keep people in the insurance they like. It is an employee request. I also noticed one of the Senators mentioned the Marshall Plan that was not liked when it was first passed; and the Civil Rights Act that was not liked when it was first passed.

I would like to point out those were both very bipartisan acts that were passed--bipartisan. It was not a partisan bill. You would have to notice that a lot of these people have been mentioning this was all passed by one side of the aisle, and there was a lot of warning before that if you do things in a hurry and you do it just partisan, that you do not devote the time that is necessary or put it in a small enough package that people can understand it.

There are vast parts of this that people did not get to read before they passed it. It is particularly noted on the House side. That leads to the kinds of difficulties we have now. We also turn over to bureaucrats writing the rules, and this is one of the examples, and we have a chance to overturn that at this point. They can go back and rewrite it again.

But, at this point, we can say: No, enough is enough. You cannot put all these things into place. You cannot kick people out of their insurance and let's see what happens in 2014 when we have all the regulation. So I think we have put a lot onto businesses that does increase cost. Because we do--even when this passes, we will still prohibit discriminating against someone with a preexisting condition, we will still prohibit imposing annual limits on benefits, we will still prohibit imposing lifetime limits on benefits. All plans will still have to cover kids under the age of 26. Although, I have noticed a whole bunch of the companies now are not going to write some of the plans that would do this, and they are getting out of the business. But all plans will still be prohibited from canceling coverage because of a paperwork error. Those drive up costs.

Relief is not in sight until 2014.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Exhibit 1

List of 54 Organizations Supporting S.J. Res 39

Aetna; American Council of Engineering Companies; American

Osteopathic Association; American Rental Association;

American Road & Transportation Builders Association; AMT--The

Association For Manufacturing Technology; Associated Builders

and Contractors; Association of Clinical Research

Organizations; Assurant Health; Automotive Recyclers

Association; Chamber of Commerce; Cigna; Coalition for

Affordable Health Coverage; Communicating for America;

Furniture Dealers Association; Health Equity; Healthcare

Leadership Council; Independent Electrical Contractors; Inc;

International Franchise Association; International

Foodservice Distributors Association.

International Housewares Association; Manufacturers' Agents

Association for the Foodservice Industry; National

Association for Printing Leadership; National Association of

Health Underwriters; National Association of Insurance and

Financial Advisories; National Association of Manufacturers;

National Association of Mortgage Brokers; National

Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of

Wholesaler-Distributors; National Club Association; National

Federation of Independent Business; National Office Products

Alliance; National Restaurants Association; National Retail

Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association;

National Tooling and Machining Association; Northeastern

Retail Lumber Association; NPES The Association for Suppliers

of Printing, Publishing and Converting Technologies; Office

Furniture Dealers Alliance; Pediatrix.

Pharmeceutical Research & Manufacturers Association;

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association;

Precision Machined Products Association; Precision

Metalforming Association; Printing Industries of America;

Self-Insurance Institute of America; Service Station Dealers

of America; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Small

Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care; Specialty

Equipment Market Association; Textile Care Allied Trades

Association; Tire Industry Association; Turfgrass Producers

International; The Latino Coalition.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am about out of time.

Certainly.

The Senator from Iowa is not answering the same question the Senator from Illinois is asking. I did say that when the resolution passes, they would

not be able to discriminate on preexisting, they would not be able to impose annual limits. They will not be imposing lifetime limits. They will have to keep people until age 26, and they will not be able to cancel it for paperwork error. I think that is the question the Senator from Illinois was asking, not the copays and those things.

All plans, even if the grandfathering clause is taken out?

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

In one of the instances, that is correct.

That is not only a correct statement, the estimate is a little low, according to the administration.

According to the administration, in small businesses, 80 percent of the people--unless this is passed--will lose the insurance they have and like, and in all businesses 69 percent will. Those are not my numbers; those are the administration's numbers.

That is correct. And so were the other parts that were done in order to buy the bill in a bipartisan way.

It is a correct assessment in most of the parts. They will have to give up the insurance they have now, even if they like it, which the President did mention 47 times in public speeches. And there are some requirements on how much of a change there can be.

But I have been talking to small businessmen traveling across Wyoming, talking to them and visiting them, because Congress thinks ``profit'' is a bad word, and a lot in Congress think every business is simple to run. But they have never been out there and scratched the surface a little bit to see just how tough it is.

I have had businessman after businessman whom I have visited and ones who have come to Washington because they have been so concerned who have said: I am going to do everything I can to keep my plan just exactly the same because this regulation is so difficult to understand, and I am pretty busy anyway, so I don't think I dare make any changes.

That is not true. They could make a few changes, but if they do, they will lose their status, and they will have to pay more.

Yes, that is correct. That is correct. If they change the copay, they are no longer grandfathered.

That is correct. The Federal bureaucrats have figured out what the minimum amount of insurance is that you ought to have and everybody else in America ought to have, and even if you like what you have, you are going to have to go to that if there are certain changes in your policy.

The small businessmen are worried about any changes. Because this thing is so complicated, they do not even know what the rest of the rules are going to be. They have talked about this tax credit, but a number of them have looked at the requirements on the tax credit and said: How in the heck do I ever comply with that? So they are a little worried about being able to get that too.

Yes, it will be dramatic. We have not begun to touch all of the regulations that have to be written on this yet. We looked at the Medicare bill and how many pages of regulations came out of that, and it was 100 per page, which would be 270,000 pages on this one. That is where that number came from.

And the Senator from Arizona has not even mentioned the 1099 problem that is supposed to help pay for part of this bill.

Right.

Mr. President, when we talk about 121 pages, we are talking about what the small businessman has to access. He has to go on the Internet and print out the pages. There are 121 pages. Yes, if he could get it in the format of the Federal Register, he would have 34 pages. But you can't ignore everything but 1\1/2\ pages. You have to do the whole thing.

Small business is upset about this. That is why I listed the 54 different organizations that are opposing this bill. I have gotten, and I am sure everybody has gotten--even though I only brought this resolution up last week, there are hundreds of letters coming in with examples of what this will do to them.

From Fort Lauderdale, FL: They received such a large increase of people being grandfathered out of the plan, they will be forced to get a new plan because they made their current plan so expensive. Now the new plans have much higher deductibles, more out-of-pocket costs, and more affordable plans only offer to pay 50 percent coinsurance. So the options are limited.

The options are limited to all of the businesses. I have letter after letter that shows how it isn't just the business that has to absorb these costs. The individuals who have the insurance who have been pleased with their insurance are going to have to go out on the open market because the company is going to say it can't afford to do it anymore. They are trying to keep the insurance, but that has been the problem for small businesses all along.

Our economy is already struggling. It doesn't need more job-killing, cost-increasing government mandates. We are hearing from small businesses across the country which are already being forced to swallow large premium increases that will prevent them from hiring more workers. That is jobs. We need to create more jobs, not write regulations that lead to less jobs.

The bill was sold as letting people keep what they have, but the devil is in the details. Do a little digging. It is clear. Americans would not be able to keep what they have. The simple truth is, because this new rule will drastically tie the hands of employers, few employers are expected to be able to pursue grandfathered status.

The Enzi resolution is about protecting small business and the people who work there. Anytime an individual doesn't like what they are getting, they can go out on the open market and get something, but most of the help on getting that doesn't arrive until 2014.

Where is the cost cutting they were promised in the bill? Now we are going to add this regulation to it, and small businesses are telling me they can't afford it. If this becomes the grandfathered thing, 80 percent of small businesses are going to have to change unless my resolution is passed. Sixty-nine percent of all businesses are going to change unless my resolution is passed. People out there who like what they have--listen to this. Help your small business and help get this grandfathered thing passed.

As I mentioned, there are several organizations that are key voting on this one because it is so critical to their members and the people who work for them.

I ask my colleagues to support the resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it was just about two years ago that many of us came to the floor to say goodbye to one of our good friends. Ted Stevens was leaving the Senate and returning home to his beloved Alaska. He had earned his retirement many times over.

At last there would be time to do the things that he always enjoyed-- fishing, spending more time with his family, and being with the people of Alaska who hold him in such high esteem and affection. He was known throughout the State as Uncle Ted.

Now we are gathered again to reflect on Ted Stevens and his life, but this time we are here to say a final farewell as we mourn his loss. On reflection, nothing says more about the way he lived his life than to speak of his loss at the age of 86 with the feeling that he was taken from us all too soon.

Ted's life was a great, grand and glorious adventure, and he filled every day of it to the brim as he pursued anything and everything that interested him or moved him to action. The strength of his character and his love of his country saw him through his military service. His determination to succeed and his commitment to getting a good education helped him through college and then through law school as he worked to obtain the skills and the knowledge he knew he would need to be successful in whatever he chose to do in life.

For all who knew him, Ted's ultimate legacy can be summed up in one word--statehood. That was his first and most powerful calling, and his successful effort to make Alaska a State left its mark on our country and our flag--a distinction that will ensure that Ted will always be remembered.

Although it was a remarkable achievement, the idea of making Alaska a State wasn't a new idea when Ted got a hold of it. It had been talked about for some time, but it wasn't going anywhere because the proposal needed something more to get the ball rolling--it needed a champion who would fight for it--someone who could develop a strategy that would make the impossible dream of the people of Alaska come true. That individual was Ted Stevens.

Ted practically ran the effort from start to finish as soon as he arrived in Washington. He had a plan, and he put it into operation. It produced a groundswell of support that became so powerful there was just no stopping it. Soon President Eisenhower had signed the necessary legislation and Alaska had become our 49th State.

For most people, that would have been enough. But it wasn't enough for Ted. Ted didn't know what life had in store for him, but he knew where he would be taking the next steps in his life--back home in Alaska.

After a series of twists and turns, Ted became one of Alaska's Senators. He was a tremendously effective Senator, and his reputation grew over the years as a tireless worker who wouldn't take no for an answer when it involved one of his State's priorities.

Ted and I were able to forge a good working relationship and a friendship that meant a lot to us both. We understood each other and more often than not, we supported each other's legislative priorities. Wyoming is a lot like Alaska, so that may explain why Ted and I got along so well.

Wyoming is a large State with a relatively small population. So is Alaska. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of natural beauty. So is Alaska. The people who call our States their home are strong, independent and proud--proud of their past, confident of their future, and well aware of how blessed they are to be Americans. I think that comes from the placement of our States. It took people with a sense of adventure and a willingness to put up with a great deal of difficulty and an abundance of hardship to travel the miles it took for them to get to Wyoming and later to travel North to Alaska.

In the years to come, whenever I remember the days I spent with Ted, I will think of the words of the old adage that reminds us that the most important inheritance we receive from our

friends, family and those we care about is found in the memories we will always carry with us of the special days we shared with them. For me, I will always remember the times I spent away from the Senate doing what Ted and I most loved to do: enjoying the great outdoors with a fishing rod in our hands. If you are from Wyoming or Alaska, I do not think you can find a bad fishing spot anywhere in those two States.

That is how Ted got a lot of us to his beloved Alaska year after year. He was always talking about his Kenai Tournament and the chance it gave everyone to see the sights of Alaska and get a little break from the rigors of the Senate. It was a great fishing tournament, but it was also a chance for us to help Ted raise some needed funds that were used to improve the habitat of the salmon that had the good sense to live there.

God must have needed a good man. I know we all miss Ted. When he wore his Hulk tie, you knew things were about to happen and happen fast. This memory makes it feel like he is never far away. Diana joins in sending our sympathy to Catherine and all his family. The Stevens family can be very proud of the difference they made together over the years and of the legacy they will proudly carry of service and an unwillingness to ever think any task is impossible, no matter how difficult the struggle.

I cannot help but think God needed someone with Ted's abilities to have taken him from us. I take some comfort in the knowledge that Ted was doing those things he dearly loved right up to the end. He was flying around his beloved Alaska and heading to a lodge to catch up on a little fishing when his plane went down.

In the days to come, whenever I am with my grandson and we both look up at the sky with the awe and wonder it inspires, I will remember the words of the Eskimo proverb that speaks to the reason why the beautiful lights in the sky shine so brightly at night. As legend goes: Perhaps they are not stars but, rather, openings in heaven, where the love of our lost ones pours through and shines down upon us to let us know that they are happy.

I do not know if there is fishing in heaven, but if there is, I know Ted must be up there somewhere waiting patiently for a nibble and the chance to reel in another prize winner. I can almost see him there, fishing rod in hand and a smile on his face. If that is what heaven has brought to Ted, I have no doubt he will be happy forever because it does not get any better than that.

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

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, as the Senator from West Virginia notes, the only change in mine safety law that was

made was with his and my leadership and several others. That was the first change in 30 years. I know he is aware that in the area of OSHA, the only legislative changes that have been made in the 28 years the law has existed were under my chairmanship, with me as a major sponsor. So I am interested in safety.

The Republicans weren't invited to work on a bipartisan bill until 2 weeks before the August recess. We had our staffs work through the entire recess. There were numerous meetings. We were making great process. I think we had agreed on 14 different parts or so. We still had six or so provisions that were in the process of negotiation, but very close, and seven or so that the Senators themselves would have to work out. So I am disappointed that was called off. It was not called off by my staff. I think we could have had a bipartisan bill that would wind up unanimous on this side like the last one, with only a few objections on the House side.

So I am disappointed my colleague is attempting to bring up a bill with no bipartisan support at this late stage of the Senate schedule. They went back to the original one, not the one we have been negotiating. If the majority truly wanted to pass a bill on this issue, we would have continued those bipartisan negotiations, or they could have taken this bill through the Senate procedure and allowed a hearing and a markup on the bill.

As I stated last week on the floor, if this were to be brought up this way, I would have to object, and I do object.

Mr. President, having objected, I would like to take a moment to clear up some confusion about what caused the breakdown of bipartisan negotiations on mine safety legislation last week.

The terrible tragedy that occurred in West Virginia this past April has focused us again on the strength of our Federal mine safety laws and regulations. As a Senator from a State that leads the Nation in coal production, I have always considered workplace safety as one of the most important missions of the HELP Committee and I have been pleased to work across the aisle to improve safety. That is exactly what I have tried to do this year as well with my colleagues from West Virginia and members of the committee.

As my colleagues well know, negotiations had been making significant progress until we ran into a stumbling block known as the election cycle. The staffs of seven Senators had been meeting several times a week for over 2 months and all throughout the recess period. Agreements had been formed on over a dozen important proposals, and several more important ones were right on the brink of compromise when the talks were abruptly called off until after the election. Despite what has been said in the press and on this floor, the simple fact is that we might well have had an agreement by now if the majority hadn't decided they would rather have an election issue. Certainly, it is not for me to consult on the political calculations of my colleagues. But it seems to me that political theatre and failing to work together to get important things like this done are exactly what the American people are so frustrated by this year.

We are serving this Nation best when we work together to accomplish the people's business. The formula is not that complicated and, really, anyone can do it:

Bring both sides together for discussions,

Establish agreed upon goals and work toward agreement on those goals,

Consult with stakeholders that will be affected by the changes being discussed,

Once substantial agreement has been reached, determine which issues the sides will never be able to agree upon, and set those aside for another day's debate. This is what I call the 80-20 rule.

This formula has worked in the past for the very issue we are discussing today--mine safety. In 2006, when I was chairman of the HELP Committee, we were faced with a string of tragic mine accidents in West Virginia. In response to the first one, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kennedy organized a trip to Sago, WV, to meet with miners, victims' families and investigators. The three of us, along with Senators Isakson, Murray, and Byrd, then began negotiations and were able to come up with an agreement in less than 2 months--the MINER Act, which was the first major revision of the Mine Safety and Health Act since 1977. This bill made important improvements to the emergency preparedness of underground mines and has fostered tremendous improvements in communications technology adaptability to the underground environment.

One of the reasons I am so proud of the MINER Act is that we wrote it in the way I believe all legislation should be drafted. We brought in all of the stakeholders--the union, the industry, the safety experts, the Mine Safety and Health Administration--MSHA--and we sat them all around the table and worked through the biggest safety concerns and the best way to approach them. Because of the bipartisan nature of the bill, it sailed through a committee markup, was passed by the Senate unanimously a week later, and passed the House 2 weeks later with just 37 House Members opposing. One more week later it was signed into law. That is how it was done.

During my tenure as the chairman of the HELP Committee, we were able to move 27 bills to enactment this way. In total, we reported 35 bills out of committee and, of those, 25 passed the Senate. This is the kind of cooperation and accomplishment Americans are demanding, especially on an issue as important and timely as workplace safety.

Every day, thousands of Americans go to work in the energy production industry. The work they do benefits every single one of us and underpins our entire economy. This year, major accidents in the energy- producing sector have taken the lives of 29 men in West Virginia, 6 in Connecticut, 7 in Washington State, 3 in Texas and 11 men off the coast of Louisiana.

If there was ever a time to work together to actually enact legislation, as opposed to playing at political theatre, this should be it.