Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow from my office, Gemma Weiblinger, be granted the privileges of the floor for this speech and the budget presentation next week.

Mr. President, I will make a few comments about what is going on around here. I am not sure what has gotten into the water around here, but something strange has happened over the last couple days. Well, maybe it is not so strange, or even unusual, and that is unfortunate. What I am talking about is a sort of snowstorm, a whiteout--the people in Wyoming will know what I am talking about-- except this whiteout isn't made of snow.

Bear with me while I describe our last vote, the one we did last night. It was cloture on a motion to proceed to a measure that says we should have a plan to fight al-Qaida and that we should basically put that plan out for public comment. That might strike people outside Washington as a little odd, and it should. Doesn't our military already have a plan? Yes, it does. Why would we want to tell al-Qaida how we plan to defeat them? Good questions. Good points.

The fact that the motion to debate the proposal passed overwhelmingly might further leave people scratching their heads. Senators, the majority of whom, I would venture to say, do not want the proposal to become law, voted to waste the Senate's time debating this measure. Why? Is it because debating this will actually help us to defeat al- Qaida? Is it because debating this will make our Nation more secure? No, it would not.

This is all happening at a time when we have an urgent need to work on solutions to the problems just about every one of the American people worry about. Health care is at the top of the list. Congress needs to wrangle with spiraling health care costs. Medicare is going broke. Social Security is following suit a little bit later. There are education measures on the table right now that we need to finish. Our economy begs for positive action. We have a budget problem in Congress. But the Senate came to a decision. On a vote of 89 to 3 last night, this body decided that instead of working on these problems I mentioned, we needed to debate a bill few of us want to ultimately approve. That is wrong. The American people did not elect us to play ``gotcha'' politics. They want to see action on real problems. They want to see results--positive results.

I voted against debating on this ill-begotten proposal because Congress needs to be doing the work the people sent us here to do.

National defense is of utmost importance to our Nation. Without a strong national defense, we would not have the free country we have. I strongly support our troops. I thank them every day and pray for them and their families every night. I do all in my power to

see that they have the support and the resources to do their job. Their lives, and ultimately our way of life, depend on it; it depends on them. But this proposal we are debating now doesn't help them. Our military strategists, our leaders in the field, do not want this legislation.

Of course we need a plan to defeat al-Qaida in every corner of the world where this wretched terrorist group hides. We need to focus on the terrorists and defeat them at every turn. But is it Congress's role to insist on a plan and then share the plan with al-Qaida? That is ultimately what this legislation would do. If Congress forces the administration and our military to write this plan according to Congress's specification, then Congress is going to want to see the plan to ensure it meets Congress's requirements. We all know Congress cannot keep a secret. If you tell the enemy your strategy, then your strategy will not work. This is a bill that is fundamentally flawed at the outset. I voted not to debate the bill. I was one of three, but a bill not worth doing is a bill not worth debating.

Just before September 11, 2001, I was given the opportunity to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Antiterrorism. It was during August that I was assigned to that. So in September, since I was the newest person on the committee and the least ranking, a lot of people said: How did he get on that committee? It wasn't important until after September 11, 2001--or at least we didn't place that kind of importance on it. Through that role, I was given the opportunity to work directly with other countries at the United Nations on ways to stop terrorism. I am an accountant, so I was delighted to be a part of the group that said one of the answers was to concentrate on following the money. It made a huge difference and it continues to make a difference. Countries that will never publicly admit to helping in the hunt for terrorists have helped. I know countries peer pressured other countries into helping with the fight against terrorism. Terrorists were caught, they were prosecuted, and some were executed. More sophisticated versions of this plan to fight terrorism are still in operation today. But we should not disclose the plan because that would make them worthless.

The Senate wants additional reports. Why? Congress has already mandated reports on the National Security Strategy of the United States, the National Defense Strategy of the United States, the National Homeland Security Strategy of the United States, the National Military Strategy of the United States, the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror, the National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. Does that sound like plenty of work for the Pentagon?

I want you to know the Pentagon is already doing what this bill wants us to do. We do need a plan. We have a plan. We cannot make that plan public without allowing the enemy to figure out how to combat every article in it. Why are we having this debate? Well, I know we are having this debate partly to place emphasis on the fact that we need to get the FISA legislation passed. Daily, we are missing opportunities to know what al-Qaida is doing and planning. We were able to do that until about a week ago. Congress could easily approve the FISA bill. It passed out of this body by a significant majority. The House needs to pass it and send it to the President. What does that bill do? One of the things it does is make terrorists almost as accountable as drug dealers. Yes, we have stronger laws in this country for drug dealers and the way to interdict that than we do for terrorists, without having the FISA bill.

What do the American people want Congress to do? They want us to improve their ability to access quality health care. They want us to have the capability under FISA, but they want us to concentrate on those areas that we have specific jurisdiction on, not just checking up on other people to see if they are getting their work done but checking up on ourselves to see if we are getting our work done. I think the economy, which includes health care, is the biggest issue the American people are interested in. Are we debating that? No. We are debating something I think we already have had 36 votes on in various forms, all of which failed. If you try something 36 times and it doesn't work, maybe you ought to move on to something else. I am suggesting health care is one of those issues we ought to be working on and that we could work on and that comes under our jurisdiction and we have direct responsibility for it. Or maybe education. I know the people of America want better education for their kids. They expect us to have as much as possible in place that will expedite that, that will work with the parents, the teachers, the administrators, and the communities to make sure our kids have the best job opportunities in the world. They want them to be able to have jobs and afford a home and have food for their family. They want a retirement system that helps them to be secure when they finish working.

That is why I voted against debating this bill. We are not here to be nonresponsive and nonproductive by taking nonactions. Let's act. Let's sit down together and come to an agreement on what we can do to make health care better for this country. Let's talk about what we can do to improve education in this country and then let's make it happen. Let's spend the Senate's time on real legislation of substance--ones we are supposed to solve and that we have the jurisdiction to solve and ones we have the ability to solve and ones we have the desire to solve. I have been working with people on both sides of the aisle on a number of bills that are solvable--maybe not to perfection, but hardly anything here winds up with perfection. They can be solved with 100 percent agreement across the aisle on the 80 percent of the issues that we agree on. That would be real progress for America.

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

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, on the piece of legislation we just passed. It is extremely critical to a number of people in the United States, the Native Americans.

It was an extremely difficult piece of legislation to do because it is such a diverse group of people. There are Native Americans who are living in cities, there are Native Americans living on reservations, and there is even a difference in reservations because there are some that have a lot of land and a few people, and some have a lot of people and very little land. To come up with a one-size-fits-all is not possible. This bill takes care of all of those people wherever they are and under the circumstances they are under, and it does meet the promise that was given. It culminates 15 years of work that should have been done 15 years ago, but because of the diversity, it was extremely difficult to do. And the chairman and the ranking member, working together, were able to pull that together. So I congratulate both of them for their efforts and their capability of working with everybody in this body, with probably about 100 amendments that were thought about, though not all were offered. The solutions, the ways to solve a lot of those problems are included in the bill. I think it is a very good bill, and they deserve a lot of credit for the way they worked on it and the effort they put into it and the result they got. I am looking forward to getting it resolved on both ends of the building and the President signing it, and I congratulate both of them.

I do rise today, however, to talk about finding other solutions to our health care crisis. That is a part of it. We have extended the children's health insurance plan until March of 2009, so that part has been partly solved, but my wife Diana and I travel to different parts of Wyoming most weekends, and the No. 1 issue on people's minds is their health care. They all ask me what I am going to do to make sure they have the health care they need. I am able to tell them a lot of things I am working on, but I am not able to tell them very much about things actually getting accomplished. This troubles me because our constituents deserve our help. It is time for real action, and I hope we are able to do something on health care this year.

As the senior Republican on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I spend a lot of time working on health care issues. I have spoken to this body many times about a bill that I am working on, that I have been working in conjunction with anybody in this Chamber who is interested in health care, and trying to pull together the idea so that we can do some things in health care, any one of which would help us to get closer to a solution for all Americans.

The bill I have put together is one called Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America. That will fix many of the common complaints I hear from my constituents. Why ten steps? Well, I have discovered over the course of the years I have been in this Chamber that if you try to put together one massive comprehensive bill that solves everything, you will have one piece that 5 people don't like, another piece 8 people don't like, another 11 people don't like, and another 3 people don't like, until pretty quickly you are at 51 votes and you can't get the bill done. When you try to do something comprehensively, it often looks revolutionary. And we don't do things revolutionarily; we do them evolutionarily. So I put together 10 pieces, any one of which gets us closer to having every American insured. All 10 would get every American insured. So I hope people will take a look at it.

Today, I am just going to focus on one step; that is, the first, and that is equalizing the tax insurance treatment for all Americans, not just the ones who get health insurance at work. I encourage everyone watching to look at my Web site, enzi.senate.gov, to learn more about all the steps of the bill. Again, I emphasize that these are bipartisan ideas people have given me.

Because the chairman of the committee has been so involved in the education portion--and we are making progress on the education portion, having sent several pieces to the President already, and we are going to finish the higher education bill, and we are going to finish No Child Left Behind--I have been given the flexibility to look into this health care area. The chairman and I sat down and worked on principles of health care, and then I have sought to get ideas from both sides of the aisle and incorporated them as much as I can into 10 steps.

Before I go into the details of step 1, I wish to say a few things about the entire proposal.

If the Ten Steps bill were to become law, the end result would be an insurance card for everyone. Now, lots of people have insurance cards-- Members of Congress have them, people who work for big companies have them, the kids in Wyoming who participate in the State Children's Health Insurance Program have them. Lots of people have them, and most of those people who have insurance cards are happy with the care they are getting. They do not want change. And the bill doesn't change that. If you have an insurance card now, you can keep that card and keep getting the exact same care you are getting. The problem is the 47 million or so Americans who don't have an insurance card. My bill gives all those people cards. If they can't afford the cards because they are low income, this bill helps them by giving them the money they need to purchase the insurance card. The bottom line is that everyone has a card and everyone will be able to get the care they need.

So how does the bill get everyone an insurance card, and will we bust the budget in the process of getting everyone an insurance card? The bill won't bust the budget. It won't be free, but it won't bust the budget. So how is this possible? Well, in order to understand how the bill works, it is important to review a few facts about the history of health insurance in this country.

Right now, about 60 percent of the folks under age 65 are getting their health insurance through their job. The question is why. Why are 60 percent of Americans getting their health insurance through their job? Well, the short answer to that question is, because of the way employer-sponsored

health insurance is treated for tax purposes.

Our current health insurance system is biased toward employer-based coverage due to a historical accident.

During World War II, we had wage controls. Wage controls increased competition among employers for recruiting the best employees, and health care incentivized employers by allowing them to offer health benefits instead of prohibited wage increases.

In 1954, Congress codified a provision declaring that such a contribution would not count as taxable income--an added incentive. This tax policy made it very favorable for individuals to get their health benefits through their employers and consequently has penalized individuals who get their coverage through the individual market.

We must eliminate the unfair tax treatment of health insurance, which will expand choices in coverage and give all Americans more control over their own health care.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that removing this tax bias--and a few related health care tax policies--would save the Federal Government $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years. That is a lot of money--even around here, that is a lot of money--that can and should be used to expand choices and access and give individuals more control over their health care.

Ten Steps ensures that every American can benefit from this savings whether they get their health care from their employer, from the individual insurance market, or they decide they want to get off of Medicaid and switch to private insurance. So how does the bill do this? The plan gives all Americans who have at least a certain amount of health insurance a standard deduction. The national above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance would equal $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual. The bill also gives low-income folks a tax credit equal to $5,000 for a family or $2,500 for an individual. The subsidy amount phases out as income gets higher, so folks won't be eligible for the subsidy at all, but everyone is eligible for the standard deduction. Because the bill takes this hybrid approach to coupling the standard deduction proposal with the tax credit proposal, no particular population is adversely affected. The Tax Code would no longer penalize folks who don't get their insurance through their job.

Let me be clear. My goal is not to erode employer-based health insurance, given that Ten Steps does not alter the way employers treat health insurance. Rather, I wanted to provide more options for individuals who don't currently have insurance through their employer. Correcting a flawed tax code would make it easier for working Americans to buy health insurance. Jobs don't need health insurance, people need health insurance. American families who aren't insured through their employers should have the same accesses to care. Everyone should be treated equally.

I hope we can move forward quickly on making these changes so that every American can get health insurance. It is time for real action. We need to do something. It isn't necessary to wait for the end of a Presidential election to solve basic problems for the American people. These 10 steps will take care of a lot of things. We can do any one of them and make a difference now and show that Congress can get things done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.

I rise in support of renewing and reinvigorating the Indian health care programs. For too long we have neglected our duty to review this program and ensure that it continues to efficiently deliver high- quality health care. As part of that effort in the last Congress, Senator McCain and I and Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski introduced comprehensive legislation that would do that, and I am pleased that a great portion of the bill we are discussing today includes provisions of that bill, which was S. 4122.

In crafting that legislation last Congress, we kept in mind the 80/20 rule in working between the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee. We used this 80/20 rule--or the 80-percent rule--which is that 80 percent of the time we are going to agree on a topic and it is only 20 percent of the time that we disagree. So to gain broad support we focused on that 80 percent to ensure it was a strong bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a piece that is long overdue. This should have been reauthorized years ago. It leaves out some important things that are necessary for the tribes in administering Indian health.

A few weeks ago, I did mention a few remaining concerns I had with the underlying Indian health care bill, and thankfully, due to the work of many in this Chamber, and particularly Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski, I no longer have concerns with the underlying legislation. The improvements to the bill required minimal language changes, but they do have huge policy implications. I am glad we are better able to clarify the scope of Federal liability coverage. By doing so, we no longer imply that the Federal Government could be telling Americans how to practice their own religious beliefs. For this and the issue of urban Indians, we were able to find a third way, a middle ground, on the appropriate role for providing services to urban Indians.

I am also pleased to hear that at least two outstanding issues within the Finance Committee's title of this bill have also been resolved. I thank Senator Kyl for all his efforts in the area to create better Medicaid copays and better citizenship documentation. I realize others may not see these compromises as the perfect solution. However, they are moving us in the right direction on these key topics. As I remind people around here a lot, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation.

The 80 percent this bill contains will solve immense problems for tribes throughout the United States. It will move health care forward for all who are involved, and it will make a huge difference. It is past due. We still can work on other issues that are outstanding that we hear mentioned around the Chamber in the debate, but this piece of legislation needs to pass. It needs to pass now. It should have passed a year and a half ago.

We almost passed it at the end of that session, until we got the scoring, and the scoring used the wrong bill. They did not use the bill Senator McCain and I and Senators Murkowski and Dorgan put together. They used a different bill, and the cost came in extremely high. And it would, under that bill. It wasn't this bill. It wasn't what we worked on.

It has taken us another year and a half to get to the point where we can pass a bill that will solve the problems for the tribes and keep this program moving forward in a very positive way. I am glad we will be able to pass this legislation out of the Senate, and I look forward to working with others to get this bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a resolution today honoring the men and women known as ``cowboys.'' My late colleague, Senator Craig Thomas began the tradition of introducing a Senate resolution designating the fourth Saturday of July as the National Day of the Cowboy. I am so proud to carry on that tradition. The national day celebrates the history of cowboys in America and recognizes the important work today's cowboys are doing in the United States. The cowboy spirit is about honesty, integrity, courage, and patriotism, and cowboys are models of strong character, sound family values, and good common sense.

Cowboys were some of the first men and women to settle in the American West, and they continue to make important contributions to our economy, Western culture and my home State of Wyoming today. This year's resolution designates July 26, 2008, as the National Day of the Cowboy. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important role cowboys play in our country and will work with me to pass this resolution.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to express some disappointment with some items that we were not able to accomplish last year. I hope we will quickly turn to these priorities the first thing this year.

My wife Diana and I travel to different parts of Wyoming most weekends. The No. 1 issue on people's minds is health care. Well, maybe it is the economy. But when they talk about the economy, they are talking about health care. They may be talking about some housing crunches. They may be talking about some other things. But I can tell you that to a person they think health care is a big part of the economy, and health care is someplace that we ought to be doing something. They all ask me what I am doing to make sure they have health care. I tell them about the things I am doing to increase access, to decrease costs, to promote informed choices, and to ensure that health care is more affordable, and everyone gets it.

I also want to say, everyone understands it. Our constituents deserve our help. I hope we are able to really do something on health care early this year. This doesn't need to be the subject of every debate by the Presidential candidates. There is a lot of overlap in what the Presidential candidates are saying. The people don't want to wait until November in order to be able to wait until the next year in order to wait for us to do something. There is plenty of things out there that can be done. So I hope we are able to do something about health care, and do it now.

It is time for real action. All eyes are on this Congress to get something done. After this last week of having one vote, I think they are hoping we can either get FISA done or maybe we can get a stimulus package done. Get something done. Maybe it would be easier to be doing something in the area of health care. That is a big concern of theirs.

It is shameful we haven't been able to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance. I am saying: Do something. The people of Wyoming are saying to me: Do something. Even if it is wrong, it will at least be something. And it might help.

Now, as the senior Republican on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I spend a lot of time working on solutions to our health care crisis. I have even talked to

many of the people in this body who have an idea on health care. I have been collecting those ideas. I took those ideas, and I put them in a package--a package of steps that could achieve what I am talking about, which is access to affordable health insurance for every American. Any one of those steps would improve the situation.

Why did I put it in steps? Well, I have noticed when we are trying to do something comprehensive around here that one piece of the package will have 5 people who are opposed, another piece of the package will have 8 people who are opposed, another one will have 11 people who are opposed, and another one 7. Pretty quickly you are at 51. You cannot pass something unless you have 51 who are for it.

So if we do the steps a step at a time--granted, it is not as grand and as promising for publicity, but if we do them a step at a time, if there are 5 people who do not like it, it is 95 to 5. That is pretty passable around here, and it makes progress. And chances are pretty good those people will express what their concerns are, and it might be possible to work out some of those.

You would be surprised how many times on this Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions we are able to go with a third way and figure out something that solves a problem for somebody without upsetting everybody else. I would be willing to bet over the last 3 years we have had more pieces of legislation passed from that committee unanimously than any other committee, and it has always been one of the most contentious committees in the Senate. But it is also a committee where people work together to come up with solutions. That is why I collected these ideas from people.

We have had a number of hearings over the last 3 years that dealt with this issue. There are solutions that are available. So if you look at my Web site, you will find ``Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America,'' which would fix many of the common complaints I hear from my constituents. Now, I am not going to go into all the details of that bill today. But I would encourage everyone to look at my Web site, which is www.enzi.senate.gov, to learn more about the bill. This is a possibility.

Now, there are a lot of transformations that can be done on it, but this has 10 possibilities for ways we can improve health care in America. I have to say, there are ideas from both sides of the aisle. I try not to get into a polarized situation where we are saying this is the Republican way, and then have somebody else say this is the Democrat way, and the two never meet. We have to meet. We have to solve the problems. So take a look at that www.enzi.senate.gov Web site and send your letters and comments and talk to me personally, those of you in the Senate.

If this bill were to become law, the end result would be an insurance card for everyone. Now, lots of people have insurance cards. Members of Congress have them. People who work in big companies have them. The kids in Wyoming who participate in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, have them. Lots of people have them. Most of those people who have insurance cards are pretty happy with the care they are getting.

This part of the bill would not change that. If you have an insurance card now, you can keep that card, and you can keep getting the exact same care you are getting now. The problem is, 47 million or so Americans do not have an insurance card. This bill gives all of those people insurance cards. If they cannot afford the cards because they are low income, one step helps them out by giving them the money they need to purchase the insurance card. The bottom line is, everyone has a card and everyone will be able to get the care they need.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said the only way to give everyone an insurance card is to give all Americans a Medicare card. I have to disagree with that. The Federal Government should be the payer of last resort, not the primary purchaser.

When my wife and I are traveling in my home State of Wyoming, we visit a lot of senior centers. During these visits, I always hear about problems with Medicare. Some seniors get upset that the cost keeps going up. Some seniors tell me they cannot find a doctor who takes Medicare anymore. Some seniors tell me the way the Government runs the program is confusing. Some seniors tell me it takes them months to hear back from Medicare when they have problems.

Now, I also have a lot of doctors and pharmacists--not nearly as many as we would like to have. We have a huge health care provider shortage in Wyoming, including veterinarians. I mention that a lot. We keep trying to encourage them to come, and we are having some success at it, but we have a huge problem. I tour the hospitals, the hospice organizations, the nursing facilities, and the rehabilitation centers.

The one consistent message all these folks relay to me is that Medicare does not pay them enough. Sometimes I even hear stories about how they do not get paid enough to cover their own costs. You cannot stay in business on volume if you cannot cover your costs. And this is not a volume business. This is one where it is one person at a time. Some folks are even closing their doors and going out of business because they cannot afford to keep their doors open under Medicare.

They do not like the Government telling them what they can and cannot do. They do not like the Government prescribing how they practice medicine. With all the problems in this program, why would Congress multiply the problems giving every American a Medicare card?

I have to tell you about a guy who lives just outside of Pinedale, WY--Big Piney, WY. All these big cities kind of get me confused. But his name is Dr. Close. He is actually well known internationally because he spent most of his life in Africa studying Ebola. And he is also known because he has a daughter named Glenn Close whom people may have seen in a movie or two. But he now lives by Big Piney, WY--a little bit out of town--and he is now an old-fashioned country doctor. He makes house calls. He even does hospice work. If somebody is dying, he will stay with them during those difficult times--hours and days on end.

When I visited him last time, he showed me some documents that he gives to people who are going to be his patients. It says: I am not going to do Medicare. He will not take Medicare. He says it takes too much time. It costs too much money. So he does not volunteer if they cannot afford to pay, but he has a pretty good thing of people donating--some of them who have been helped before, some who have money who have kind of donated to a foundation for him. He adds some money that is in a foundation. So he is able to get by that way. But he is a great source on some of the problems with Medicare and why we are having less providers who are willing to provide to anybody who needs Medicare. We have a lot of people out there who need help, and they have Medicare. So, Medicare, as it stands right now, is not the best answer for people.

So there is a much better way to get everyone an insurance card that does not take us down the path of Government-run health care. I want to repeat that and make sure folks at home know what I mean when I say ``Government-run health care.''

Government-run health care means that a committee in Washington is deciding the care you are going to get. A committee is deciding what is best for you. The decisions would no longer be made by you and your doctor. Oh, yes, within limits they would be but not really. A committee in Washington is deciding what doctors you can go to and deciding how much the doctor gets paid.

A committee in Washington is deciding which prescription drugs are the most effective for you. It would not matter that you know your body, that your doctor knows your body. You do know how your body works, and you will have worked closely with your doctor to know what drugs you should be taking. If that committee in Washington decides you should not have the drugs you have taken your whole life, and instead decides you should take another similar drug, then you have to take another similar drug.

I went around Wyoming talking about Medicare Part D, and helping people to know, if they needed to make a choice, how to make a choice. I got the volunteer people working all over the State. We had a tremendous signup

in Wyoming. At every one of the hearings I did, I had somebody come and say: I cannot get the drugs I need.

I would say: You are a veteran, aren't you?

They would say: Yes. How did you know?

Well, I knew because the Medicare Part D part was not in operation yet, and the Government was negotiating prices on veterans health. The only way you can do that is to say what ones are going to be acceptable or get the similar ones to bid against each other, which means some of them are not going to be available. That is exactly what happened. So sometimes when the Government gets involved, they limit what you can do. That is the problem with Government-run health care.

I promise to work hard to make sure everyone is not forced into a Government plan. My plan gives every American the choice to pick the insurance card they want. Now, there are some things we have to do with insurance companies, too. But that plan that they pick can be the one that best fits their needs. Every American will have the choice to discuss their care with their doctor and decide which plan is best for them. This plan puts the patient first. This plan gives patients control over their own health care.

Another important part, this plan is affordable. It is not free. It is not free--people do not appreciate things that are free--but it is affordable. It needs to be affordable, and it is affordable. Sometimes if things are free, people do not think it does anything. Now, there are a lot of details on my Web site about how this plan redistributes the tax breaks that are currently only going to the people whose employers are giving them health insurance cards. And it makes sure all Americans get the tax breaks.

This plan also reduces the cost of health care. Right now, a lot of rules are in place that prohibit groups of businesses from getting together and pooling their purchasing power so they can negotiate better deals on insurance cards. They can get a bigger pool by going across State lines, and you have to have a bigger one if you are going to negotiate with the insurance companies. Where they have been able to do it in high-population States, within their State, it has worked. Those same groups have said: Let's expand out a little further.

First of all, we get a whole lot more people covered, and we will get lower rates. So it does not make sense if they cannot go across State lines and get these bigger groups--meaning if a group of shoe store owners in Wyoming want to get together with shoe store owners in Montana and Colorado and band together so they can negotiate greater discounts on health insurance, we ought to allow them to do so. That is what one of the steps does.

Now, the plan also recognizes our changing workforce. It provides real options for people to take their insurance card with them when they change jobs. No one would be trapped in a job just because their loved one or they need particular health insurance. Right now, under the system, if they move to another business, they are probably going to have a preexisting condition that will not be covered. It definitely will not be covered for a period of time, but it may not be covered at all. If you want to provide real choices, then you should also have the choice to keep the coverage you have, even if you do not keep your current job.

Now, to reiterate, this plan gives every American a health insurance card. This plan puts patients first. This plan puts the people in control of their own health care. This plan lets doctors and patients make decisions about what care they need and receive. And this plan lets you choose the health care you need.

It is in steps, and it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. There are some ideas around here that are not included in the 10 steps that are great ideas. They are just such a quantum leap that they take people out of insurance who currently have insurance who like the insurance they have. Those people are going to be very skeptical about having us change to such a revolutionary system that they lose what they have now. So we have to do it in steps. We can get to where every plan here--I am talking about those as the 11th and 12th steps--can work together.

So I am encouraging everybody to take a look at them. They are sensible proposals we could have enacted long ago, and I am disappointed this body has not made progress on any of these issues to impact every American. I hope we turn to these issues the first thing this year and enact real reform.

The Americans deserve more than politics. They deserve results. I think a surprising thing, sometimes when you look at the debate that we do not finish up around here, they even expect results. We need to meet those expectations.

Before I leave the floor, I would also like to address another aspect of health care. It is one that often does not get enough attention; that is, mental health.

I am concerned we were unable to move forward on the bipartisan legislation to revamp the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, or SAMHSA. While I am hopeful we can complete our work on this key legislation early this year, it is unfortunate we were unable to address it last year.

As part of that debate, I hope we will leave the discussion on charitable choice for the Senate floor--as we have done in the past--so all Members can engage, if they want to, and so we can get it out of committee. I know Senators have strong opinions about this provision, and I do believe that the best debate on it will be on the Senate floor. It is critical that Congress turn immediately to these issues. They will help every American have a healthier and happier new year, not only this year, but for many years to come.

Our work is cut out for us. We can do it. We can do it in a way that people will appreciate. We can do it in a way where there is common ground across the aisle. I am committed to work on that. I hope others will join me on it and help us do something. As my constituent said, do something, even if it is wrong.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of renewing and reinvigorating the Indian healthcare programs. For too long, we have neglected our duty to review this program and ensure that it continues to efficiently deliver high quality health care. As a part of that effort, last Congress Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, Senator Murkowski, and I introduced comprehensive legislation to do just that. I am pleased that a great portion of the bill we are discussing today includes provisions from that bill, S. 4122.

In crafting that legislation last Congress, we kept in mind the 80-20 rule. Eighty percent of the time we were going to agree on a topic. It is only 20 percent that we are going to disagree. Therefore, to gain broad support, we focused on the 80 percent to ensure that it was strong, bipartisan legislation.

However, there are a few ways in which the bill before us deviates from the language in S. 4122. Sometimes, those changes are improvements as we all review the language again. Unfortunately, some issues still remain.

Those issues include Federal liability coverage for traditional healthcare practices. If we don't correct this, the Federal Government could be telling Americans how to practice their own religious beliefs. In addition, we need to more fully understand the appropriate role for providing services to urban Indians. I do think there is middle ground, or a third way--as I like to call it--to be found. In addition, there must be an appropriate offset to the legislation. Given the pay-go rules in both Chambers, in addition to our own Senate procedural hurdles, it is necessary and fiscally appropriate to have a responsible offset.

I have also heard from my colleagues that there are at least two outstanding issues within the Finance Committee's title of this legislation. I hope those can also be discussed and resolved. Specifically, the concerns center around the elimination of Medicaid copays and removal of particular citizenship requirements.

As the optimist and the Senator advocating for the ``third way,'' I am hopeful that we all can continue discussing these issues and come to an agreement as to how we move forward. Individuals depending on the Indian Health Services for their health care deserve no less.

Mr. President, I thank our leaders for getting together and working things out so we were able to conclude our votes late last night and begin the Christmas recess. It was a relief to many to know they were not going to be here through Christmas due to complications that could arise from airplanes. Today, though, I am going to talk about something that is completely different.

Mr. President, I am joined on the floor by Katherine McGuire,

who is the staff director of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. This will be her last time on the floor of the Senate.

It was just about 11 years ago when I first came to Washington to serve the people of Wyoming in the Senate. As soon as I arrived, the first item on my agenda was to start to put staff together. I knew it was an important first step because the key to whatever success we are able to achieve is always due in large part to the dedicated and loyal people who work with us and for us.

In addition, that first staff is so important to a new Senator because our staffs help to set the tone for that first Congress and the beginning of every Senate career. It is true that in the end, you are only as good and effective as the people with whom you work and for whom you work--as it turns out sometimes.

Now, I talked to everyone I could. I went through a mountain of resumes and slowly but surely began to make some progress. In a short week, I went through orientation--with the leadership of my wife, we bought a house--and I interviewed over 100 people for my staff.

As I reviewed the credentials of an impressive group of applicants, I knew I would need someone to head up my staff who knew Wyoming. That meant I would need to find someone who had Wyoming roots and understood the needs of my home State. In addition, that person would need to know Washington and the Senate and how to help me and the rest of the staff get things done. I knew it would not be good enough to work hard if that hard work and determination did not produce the results that we were after.

It would not be easy to find someone who was equally at home in both Wyoming and Washington, but when I had those qualifications in mind and started looking for such a person, one candidate rose to the top. That was Katherine McGuire, and she was clearly the best and most obvious choice for the job.

She had committee experience as well as State staff experience. She also had a master's degree in agricultural economics. I represent an agricultural State, and I knew I would need that help. She helped to fuel expectations, which we were then able to meet. It is with a lot of pride that I have been inducted into the Wyoming Agricultural Hall of Fame, largely because of her efforts.

Now, I would never forget those early days. As is true with all Senators, our first office consisted of one room. It was actually a storeroom for the credit union. That cramped space helped us to develop a strong sense of teamwork right from the start because we were all in the same room and everybody knew what everyone else was doing.

Now, fortunately, Katherine was there at the helm, and she helped to direct the efforts of my legislative staff right from the start. She was able to do so because she is a natural leader. She leads the best way, and that is by example. People on my staff know they can approach her with any ideas or suggestions they have, confident she will hear them out and help them with whatever issue areas they have been assigned.

Thanks to Katherine, we were able to accomplish a great deal during my first few years in the Senate. In more sessions than I could ever count, Katherine showed she was a great negotiator and an even better strategist. She is the best networker I have ever seen.

Her competitive spirit began to show itself in high school in her play on the basketball team. It then expanded in college, and then blossomed when she played professionally in Europe. You do not want to try to rebound an issue with her.

Then, when the opportunity came to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, once again, I knew I would need to put someone in charge of my committee staff who could handle the responsibility and the opportunity we would have to take action on some issues of great importance not only to the people of Wyoming but to the rest of America as well. Once again, it did not take very long for me to feel certain that Katherine was the perfect choice for the committee staff director position.

On the committee or on my personal staff, Katherine has proven herself time and time again, and over the years she has made a difference in my work on a long list of topics that have come to the Senate floor. It would be impossible to name them all.

I want to mention my first big bill, though. It was drafted to keep Washington bureaucrats from being successful in their determination to make methane gas into a solid, which, of course, would have taken away royalties from property owners and even forced them to pay back back- royalties. In my first year, in less than a month, the correction was passed by both the Senate and the House unanimously. That meant that Katherine, my team, and I had to talk to 535 Members in Congress in less than a month to get that result.

It was interesting later to watch the Supreme Court use that bill as a basis for back payments to these same people. We could not do anything to solve anything before the legislation was passed because you have to look to the future.

So that was our first big win, and, fortunately, more was to come, as Katherine headed up my team effort. I will just mention a few: the global HIV/AIDS law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the new MINER law to protect miners of this country, the new Food and Drug Administration reform law, the Pension Protection Act, and a host of other successful bills that were signed into law. For every one of them, Katherine was always there putting in long and extended hours, providing clear, accurate leadership and advice and doing everything she could to make our team vision come true.

Whenever I get the chance, I like to tell people who ask about my staff that I was very fortunate to hire the people I did. In fact, I still think that if staff work was an Olympic event, my staff would win the gold medal--and Katherine would be the most valuable player.

Katherine was a natural fit for the captain of the team--a role she has played very well. She is proof of the wisdom of the old adage that a good captain makes everyone on the team better. Katherine has been such a good leader because she has always been willing to do what was necessary to ensure a successful outcome. She has an unusual amount of abilities and talents, and an overdose of persistence that has helped her to get things done. She has never been one to talk about what she would like to accomplish; she just takes action.

In the West, we like to say she rides hard. That has helped her to earn the respect and appreciation of not only my staff but all of the staffs she has worked with and developed close ties to over the years.

I have always believed in something called the 80 percent rule. I was not surprised to discover that Katherine understood my 80 percent rule so well because she had put it into practice long ago without even knowing the name. She knew that 80 percent of every issue can be brought to agreement. People usually are willing to accept 80 percent instead of nothing. It is the other 20 percent that is difficult to resolve. But by focusing on the 80 percent, impossible problems become possible and can be solved around here.

Katherine was also there to help support my vision to look for and find the third way in dealing with conflicts. Her philosophy has always been fashioned after the old adage: We will either find a way or make one. That attitude has always served to help her bring groups to the table to reach compromises that seemed unlikely at best.

Now Katherine has decided to leave the Hill to take on another challenge in her professional life. Katherine knows that life is an adventure, and constant change is a good thing. Now she will be moving to a new place to help spread our message.

As she leaves, I cannot thank her enough for all she has done for me and for Wyoming over the years. She has been a tireless worker, and she has never hesitated to roll up her sleeves and get to work whenever and wherever she was needed.

I remember one long evening on the Senate floor. During my speech, in thanking people at the end, I mentioned that Katherine was an excellent juggler, referring to her ability to handle many tasks at the same time. Her

daughter was watching on C-SPAN2 and said: I didn't even know Mom could juggle.

Being a legislative director and a staff director has cost her a lot of time from home. But she has been able to work her family life into her work schedule as the top priority that it needs to be. Now she will have more time to spend with her own team at home that needs her love and attention. Her husband David, along with her children Ellie and Cooper, have all been very supportive during her Senate years. She is now going to try something new, and once again her family will be there for her, supporting her, and providing the assistance she will continue to need as she pursues her new career.

It will be difficult to say goodbye to Katherine. When she leaves the Senate, she will be greatly missed. Someday soon, we will have found someone to take on the responsibilities that she leaves behind, but we will never be able to replace her. Her constant warm and genuine smile, her concern for all the people on her staff, and her unique ability to size up a political situation immediately upon contact--unmatched. She has been a tremendous addition to my personal and committee staffs, and we will miss her daily presence in our lives.

Like most offices, our staffs are more than our legislative teams, they are extended family. That will not change. She will forever be a member of the Enzi family--another daughter.

The Senate is a place to work unlike any other in the world. It welcomes only those with special skills and unique abilities and provides them with a tremendous opportunity to make this great Nation of ours a better place in which to live.

In the end, that will be Katherine's legacy after 17 years of service in the Senate. On my staff, and before that, serving with Senator Al Simpson and Senator Richard Lugar, she has made the most of every opportunity she was given, and she can be proud of the record of success she has compiled over the years in every area of her life.

We know from the Bible that we chart our course in life in our hearts, but God directs our steps. God has directed these new steps in Katherine's life, and I know she will continue to make the most of every step that God moves her to take.

Good luck and God bless you and your family, Katherine. Don't forget us. We will not forget you. In fact, we are going to leave a light burning in a window of the Capitol dome so you can always find your way back home. Thanks for your years of service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Patricia Knight who is retiring next week after 10 years as Senator Hatch's Chief of Staff and 15 years playing a central role in health policy here in the Senate.

Although, I am sure Senator Hatch will describe her role in his office, and her work on Judiciary Committee and Finance Committee issues, I wanted to rise and acknowledge her contribution to health care policy. For the last 15 years, Ms. Knight has been a constant advocate for improving the health care system. She has played an important role in every piece of device, drug, and supplement legislation that has been enacted. She has not just overseen this development, but participated. My staff and I have enjoyed working with her, as she has made it very clear that she enjoys getting bills enacted.

In the last 3 years as chairman and now ranking member of the HELP Committee, Ms. Knight has worked with my staff on all of the bioterrorism legislation, the biosimilar legislation, and the recently enacted FDA Reform Act. While being Senator Hatch's Chief of Staff, Trish worked tirelessly as she felt that this was important legislation that needed to be done correctly. She helped organize Republican and bipartisan briefings, helped draft and revise language, and encouraged everyone late into the night.

Throughout her interactions she has been a pleasure to work with kind words and funny nicknames for all. I thank her for her service and wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors. Surely, the Senate will miss her.

Mr. President, as we come together for this last week of legislative activity before we adjourn for 2007, I appreciate having this opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation for the many contributions to the Congress that have been made by one of our colleagues who will soon be retiring. We have heard many great speeches, seen a lot of passion and emotion--all well-deserved and heartfelt.

Trent Lott, who has a well-earned reputation as a hard worker and great fighter for the people of Mississippi, has announced that he will be leaving the Senate so he can spend more time with his family. Although I understand the reasons for his departure, I know I will miss him and his presence and active participation in our work and the day to day life of the Senate.

Trent's story begins in a town called Pascagoula in Mississippi. It is where he was raised and it is the place he still calls home. His dad worked in the shipyards and his mother was a teacher. Together they taught him the great lessons of life, and when he left for college he was already showing the presence of the leadership qualities that would someday help to lead him to a career in politics.

Trent enjoyed his school years and after a year of law practice, Trent got

a job with Congressman William Colmer, who was from his hometown. When Congressman Colmer retired after 40 years in the House, he encouraged and endorsed Trent as Trent ran for and won his seat.

I have often heard it said that the great formula for success is preparedness plus opportunity. I know that Trent believes it too, which is why when the opportunity came for Trent to run for the House, he was fully prepared and that ultimately led to his success. He then served in the House from 1972 until his election to the Senate in 1988.

Here in the Senate, Trent has compiled a remarkable record of achievements because he understands the importance of working together to reach common goals. I have a similar rule I have often put into practice during my service in the State legislature and here in the Senate. I call it my 80/20 rule. Simply put, it means we can agree on 80 percent of every issue. It is the other 20 percent that can sometime throw us off track and prevent a solution to the issue at hand. If we are going to make any progress, the key to success is to focus on that 80 percent and not allow ourselves to get sidetracked.

Trent fully understands that principle and he has put it into effect throughout his political career. Whenever he was working on an issue he knew that it was better to walk away with half a loaf than wind up with nothing. He knew that, with half a loaf in hand, he could always work on negotiating for the other half sometime later on down the road.

That spirit of cooperation and compromise has been Trent's hallmark and his guiding philosophy during his service in the House and Senate. That is why he was able to get so much done for his State.

There is no doubt that the people of Mississippi love Trent and they greatly appreciate how hard he has been working for their best interests. That is why they kept sending him back to Washington after every election.

I will never forget when I was running for reelection in 2002 and Trent came to Wyoming with his wife Tricia to help. He was a big hit and he received an enthusiastic response everywhere we went. It made a big difference to me to know that our leader in the Senate was willing to take the time to help a fellow Republican who was up for election.

I wasn't the only one, of course. Whenever Trent saw an opportunity to help one of our nominees, he was always there to lend his support and provide whatever was needed to increase our chance for success.

Trent has been very fortunate in his life, but nowhere has he done better than in his choice of a spouse. The old adage is true. He and I both ``over-married'' and our lives have been blessed with the presence of a spouse who makes it possible for us to do everything we need to do as Senators. Without them, our lives and our jobs would be impossible.

Now Trent has decided to leave the Senate and pursue another adventure in his life. He will be greatly missed and, after more than 30 years of fighting for the people of Mississippi, he will be very difficult to replace.

Trent will always be remembered as someone who had a talent for putting together agreements so that everyone came out a winner. He has been in more battles than I can count on the floor and in committee and through it all he has always stood up and fought for the things he believes in, like keeping our taxes low and providing a strong defense to keep us safe and free from harm.

In his statement about his retirement, Trent reminded us of the Bible passage that tells us that everything has its own time, everything has its own season. For Trent, this will be a time of great change and the beginning of another new season in his life. One thing that won't change, however, will be Trent's continued service to God and the country he loves.

Mr. President, I do need to rise to speak in strong opposition to what folks in Wyoming have figured out is an ominous omnibus appropriations bill, and they think there are literally billions of reasons to vote against this bill, and that is what I intend to do when I vote on it.

We are nearly a quarter of the way through fiscal year 2008 and only one of the 12 appropriations bills is law. The remaining 11 bills are stuck together in this bill. There is one-half trillion dollars of spending in the 3,000-page bill. Now, when I was going to school, we spent a lot of time figuring out what a million was, and I think I kind of figured that out after I got here. But we talk mostly about billions, and that is a little tougher to do. But I did run into one example that explains a billion a little bit, and that is if we are talking about a billion seconds ago, we are talking about 1959. If we are talking about a billion minutes ago, Christ was walking the Earth. If we were talking about a billion dollars of spending ago, we are talking about 8 hours and 20 minutes, the way we are spending it right now.

There was some comment about not having access to the bill. Well, the Web site had the bill the way the House was to address it 2 days ago. I suspect you can get through the 3,400 pages if you stayed up the whole 48 hours and read it, but we didn't know what that bill was going to be after their action until less than 12 hours ago--perhaps a few more than that, considering the time of night it is now. But this is a real unreal state of affairs and it has become the norm.

It has been pointed out that this isn't the only year we have done an omnibus bill, but this is exhibit No. 1 on what is wrong with government in this country, and I don't want to condone it. Every year this happens, every year we drive an omnibus, we get closer to financial ruin when we do that. What have we been spending our time on this year? Political votes, not policy votes. And the American taxpayer is paying the price here in the eleventh hour to the tune of billions of dollars.

In the 2006 mid-term elections, the American people called on us to stop business as usual. They called on us to stop overspending. They called on us to change. That is the message we gave them, that we were going to change. But instead of change, we have seen Washington run in a more partisan manner than ever before. This bill contains 3,400 pages, and I can't imagine that many of my colleagues have read it, even those who knew it was on the Web site 48 hours ago.

In the crazy world that is Washington, the bill complies with the spending level set forth by President Bush, but it does so in a way that uses budget gimmicks and hides billions of dollars in extra spending. As the only accountant in the Senate, I can tell you the Federal Government's budgeting is criminal. If a private company forgot to count $11 billion against their budget, the CEO would go to jail.

I support some of the funding in this bill. I support full funding for our veterans. I support providing money for border security. Almost all of these provisions are worthy areas for Federal funding. But we cannot spend money on everything we want and call ourselves fiscally responsible. If the money is needed for these programs, maybe we should cut out the more than 9,000 earmarks that were in the bill to pay for them. At some point, someone will have to pay for our overspending, and I would ask: Where do my colleagues think that money comes from? This money is coming from mothers working at the mall or fathers who are building buildings or farmers plowing their fields. They do not work so hard so they can serve up a dish of pork to people thousands of miles away without their consent. But that is what the architects of this bill are doing.

My concerns with this bill are more than just fiscal. We do have a process around here for considering legislation. I am talking about legislation versus appropriation. This bill ignores that process and the Senate rules that expressly prohibit legislating on appropriations bills. By making it an omnibus bill, it makes things that are important seem insignificant when compared to the one-half trillion dollars we are spending. So it seems petty if anybody suggests taking out some minor item of a few million, or even a few billion, considering the size of the bill.

But I am talking about the legislation part. It ignores the process and the Senate rules that expressly prohibit legislating on appropriations bills. Again, because it is an omnibus bill, we don't have the same right to challenge parts that would be legislating. We do hold hearings in committee. We work within the committee to develop and pass legislation. Then we consider the bill on the Senate floor. We do this so that important issues get the input and attention the American people expect and deserve. It might take longer to go through these steps, but the product is better; not perfect, but certainly better than the product that is before us today.

The amount of legislating in the Omnibus appropriations bill, particularly the Labor-HHS title, is criminal and outrageous. HIV/AIDS funding is a perfect example. A year ago, we passed a bill with a formula in it that made sure that money for HIV/AIDS followed the patients. How well did that do? It passed unanimously in the Senate and it passed unanimously in the House. You can't be more bipartisan than that. You can't be more agreeable than that. We said the formula was right and that the money should follow the

patients. Well, there is legislation in this bill that changes that formula, and it never received a hearing before a congressional committee, it has never been marked up, and it was inserted in the House bill without a full debate or even a vote.

We struck that part over here. We struck that part by a very significant vote because it was mostly 7 cities stealing from 42 other cities. That is not the way to legislate. So striking that part did occur in the Senate by a significant vote. So much for transparency and sunshine in Washington.

The Labor-HHS section of the bill is not the only section that includes problematic legislation. The bill includes provisions that allow a 2-percent deduction of State mineral royalty payments to help cover administrative costs at the Department of Interior. Let's see, what does the Department of Interior do? They get a check from Wyoming companies, collected by the State of Wyoming, audited by the State of Wyoming, and they take half of it and send us a check back for the other half. That check is going to cost us $20 million.

Whoever heard of paying somebody $20 million to write you a check? Well, maybe there is some accounting they have to do to figure out whether the money sent was exactly right. You know, accountants are not allowed to take a percentage of the money. That is what lawyers do. Accountants are supposed to stay on flat fees, and I guarantee you nobody ever got $20 million for a few minutes work. That is another example of the Government taking money that is owed to States to pay for the unrelated Federal priorities because a majority in Congress doesn't control spending.

The omnibus contains provisions to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing final regulations for oil shale development, even though the process for development was laid out through careful bipartisan negotiations that came through a committee and that were voted on by the people in the committee, that were voted on here on floor of the Senate, that were voted on the House floor, and that were combined into what we call the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We said: Get that process set up. We didn't say: Do the process. We said: Get the process set up.

Well, there is language in this bill that says: You can't set it up. You can't do what we said in 2005 as a necessity for getting energy going in this country. Now, there are plenty of possibilities for stopping that process through things that are already in place, but, no, there is legislation in this bill that says: We don't want energy. We don't want you to even consider energy. We don't even want you to set up the regulations for how you might proceed in an orderly way so that we can object to that orderly way if we want to.

It also includes the new $4,000 fee for each application for a permit to drill oil and gas wells, with no guarantees that the permits will move forward in an expeditious manner so they can produce more domestic energy. If we don't produce more energy, the price, I guarantee you, will go up. You cannot constrain the supply and get the price to go down.

It is unfortunate that Congress waited until December 18 to advance these appropriations bills. Without the ``gotcha'' politics part, they could have been completed more than 2 months ago. They could have been completed in a very bipartisan way. We have to quit playing ``gotcha'' politics. Congress wasted countless weeks writing and debating bills that were never going to be signed. The President has been quite vocal about his objections. People on both sides of the aisle have expressed objections on a lot of the things we have voted on.

So here we are today, a week before Christmas, cramming through in 1 day a project larger than several Manhattan phone books, and that most of my colleagues have not had the time to read and review, and that is even if they divided it up among all their staff and had them look at all the parts they are familiar with. So I am telling you I am offended by the process. I am disappointed in the institution. I vote ``no'' on the bill. I want us to change it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his hard work to improve his food safety amendment No. 3539, which was accepted earlier this week. I had concerns with this amendment as introduced because I think we should focus on real solutions, not just abandon our current processes. I appreciate my colleague's willingness to listen to my concerns and those of Senator Kennedy and work to address them. In this time of partisan bickering, I am gratified to see that cooperation is indeed possible.

Our food safety system is the best in the world. We have an incredible variety of foods available to us, at relatively low prices, and with a generally excellent track record for safety. But things aren't perfect, and I think we have plenty of work to do to make things even better. The HELP Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FDA, held a very informative hearing on food safety 1 week ago. We got some great recommendations from stakeholders during that hearing, and we plan to use those recommendations and the recent reports from HHS and FDA to develop bipartisan legislation.

Going back a little further, during floor debate on the FDA bill in May, Senator Durbin and I, along with Senator Kennedy, worked on a food safety amendment that was accepted 94 to 0. At that time, I pledged to work with my colleagues on a comprehensive response to food safety. I stand by that commitment.

I know that our staffs have met on food safety and work well together. It is important that we get this right and that we get it done. We can make real progress on real legislation to reform the food safety system.

Let's keep working together. We can have real reform on this and on other important issues such as health care. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve victory for the American people on these important topics.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak in favor of the farm bill, which looks close to a vote. Many of my colleagues have already expressed how important this legislation is to our country and rural communities. I could not agree more with their statements and was pleased to see the Senate finally begin legislating by considering amendments. I would also like to thank again Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and the members of the Agriculture Committee for their hard work on this bill.

Wyoming's agricultural community has always provided me with great advice on how to approach our Nation's farm policy. Consistently, I hear that livestock producers and growers want to move in a direction that provides greater access to competitive markets and limits Government barriers to conducting business. You see, the producers I have spoken with believe their checks should come from an auctioneer or buyer, not the Government. This is certainly a challenging goal recognizing the competing global pressures on our Nation's farmers and ranchers. However, I can say that the Senate has been able to inject some commonsense reforms in this bill.

The livestock title is a great example of how you can go a long way on a small budget. Reforms include a ban on packer ownership, improved language on mandatory price reporting, better enforcement mechanisms for the Packers and Stockyards Act, and efforts to improve how antitrust claims are arbitrated. Language in this title will implement country-of-origin labeling by September 30, 2008, something I have been working on with my colleagues since I came to the Senate in 1997. Also, the livestock title contains a ban on packer ownership and creates a special counsel in USDA for coordinating investigations of anticompetitive behaviors, two measures that will significantly improve the enforcement of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act.

Although I am pleased to see that this farm bill contains a livestock title, I will say I am disappointed that the Senate wasn't able to include a number of additional measures that would have promoted competition in the livestock market. Earlier this week, we considered the business justification amendment that would have leveled the playing field for producers seeking recourse from anticompetitive marketing practices. This amendment failed to reach the threshold for passage, but I expect to continue working with my colleagues to adopt this measure in the future.

I did not have the opportunity to offer my amendment on captive supply reform, but I look forward to continuing my work on this proposal. Senate Agriculture Committee hearings and numerous reports have continued to indicate there is a need to improve the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The livestock industry has changed significantly since the early days of the 20th century. The Senate cannot fail to overlook these changes and how they adversely affect our Nation's independent livestock producers.

As a former small business owner, I appreciate another measure in this bill that promotes the ability for independent livestock producers to market their products beyond the borders of their respective States. The ban on State-inspected meat is a major barrier to small ranchers seeking to promote their products, most of which are valued-added and premium products, to buyers in neighboring States. State meat-packing facilities have inspection regimes just as stringent as federally supervised plants, and in the case of Wyoming better standards than those at the Federal level. The United States already allows meat products into our country from other nations to move freely across State lines on the promise that their products comply with our Federal standards. Why not allow meat products guaranteed to Federal specifications to also cross State lines? I trust that as the legislation advances I will be able to work with my colleagues to keep this provision in the bill.

One provision in this bill that has gotten the attention of many rural landowners is a fix to an attack on farmers and ranchers. The Department of Homeland Security recently promulgated rules that classify propane as a ``chemical of interest'' and would require individuals to register certain amounts of the liquefied gas at a great cost to the rural landowner. I appreciate the efforts of the Department to protect our Nation from security threats, but these rules come at the expense of ranchers and farmers who store large amounts of propane for their operations. I am pleased to see language in this bill that exempts rural land owners from this rule while also serving the interests of our national security.

Wyoming's vast open spaces benefit greatly from the working lands programs in this legislation. Producers in Wyoming continually seek better tools that allow them to improve the productivity of their operation while ensuring that future generations can enjoy the landscape we enjoy today. Although I would have preferred to see more enrollable acres and funding for programs such as EQIP and the Grassland Reserve Program, I am confident that the package before the Senate will continue the success of these popular programs.

Recognizing these improvements, I can say that I hoped to have additional reforms included that would allow our farmers and ranchers to transition from existing farm support programs. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment would have made significant advances in ensuring that crop assistance goes to the family farms most in need of support. Additionally, the Senate had the opportunity to save money in this farm bill through the substitute amendment to the commodity title offered by my colleague, Senator Lugar. I ask that my colleagues consider reducing the spending levels of this bill as the farm bill advances to conference.

Mr. President, Wyoming's independent ranchers and farmers work hard to produce agricultural products for our country, and they deserve a farm bill that promotes competitive markets and seeks to reform farm support programs. The Senate has been able to put together a reasonable farm bill with realistic improvements in both of these areas. Saying that, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the farm bill and continue thinking about the future of agriculture and our rural communities.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I thank Mr. Hatch for introducing this legislation, which I have joined as an original cosponsor. Ms. Shriver's contribution stands alone, both in terms of what she has done in terms of individuals with intellectual disabilities and their meaningful contribution in society as well as in advancing basic research at the National Institutes of Health. The National Institute of Child Health and Development was launched in the beginning of the Kennedy Administration and Ms. Shriver and her husband Sargent advocated for the institute when many knowledgeable scientists were willing to write off these individuals and advocated that the money spent at the NICHD would be better spent studying adult diseases. Ms. Shriver advocated for this research and I think it is fair to say without her advocacy the Institute would not be what it is today.

I agree. We do not intend this to change or signal any other change at NIH.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation before us, S. 2484. This bill renames the National Institute of Child Health and Development at the NIH as the ``Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development''.

This renaming bill was added during the HELP Committee markup to S. 1011, given that S. 1011 renamed two other Institutes at the National Institutes of Health. Senator Hatch, Senator Mikulski, and I sponsored this amendment, and it was unanimously accepted by the HELP Committee. Then, S. 1011 was unanimously voted out of Committee. We would like to have moved the entire bill, but unfortunately, we are not able to do that today due to some objections. Therefore, we are trying to get done what we can get done at the end of this session and simply moving the amendment that does not raise concerns with other members of this body.

I understand that it is unusual to rename an institute at NIH after an individual, but this is an unusual case. Ms. Shriver has long been associated with the National Institute of Child Health and Development, NICHD, and was an early champion of it.

NICHD was established in the 1960s by President Kennedy when he ushered in a ``New Frontier'' focusing on science and its potential for improving everyone's life. During the 1960s, we also learned of the biological causes of intellectual disabilities. At the same time, Ms. Shriver was an advocate for people with intellectual disabilities. With the help of her husband, Sargent, Ms. Shriver took on the challenge of improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities and pursued that goal as a senior adviser to the President.

I suspect other Members will note her work with the Special

Olympics. That is only a small portion of what she has done

for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At the time

of NICHD's creation, many leaders in the scientific community

felt that money spent to research topics related to human

development and intellectual disability would be better spent

elsewhere. Ms. Shriver played a seminal role helping the

scientific community, policymakers, and the general public

recognize the importance of such research. She recognized

that it was not just important for those with intellectual

disabilities, but the research was a bridge to understanding

broader, more general aspects of human development.

Therefore, it would not be an overstatement to say that,

without Ms. Shriver's contribution, this institute would not

exist.

Therefore, Mr. President, I rise today and ask for the support of my colleagues in recognizing the contributions of Ms. Shriver through quick enactment of this legislation, S. 2484.