Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3437.

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

Mr. President, at the present time, the last numbers that I saw, Congress's approval rating was 12 percent. There is a reason for that. We have been nibbling around the edges on a lot of things, and we have been doing earmarks. I have an amendment that deals with one of the most egregious earmarks I have seen.

Less than a year ago we passed a bill in this body unanimously, that the House then passed unanimously, that addressed the Ryan White AIDS program, and it included transparency, it included accountability, and it included a change in the formula. The change in the formula gave some protection to those who have had a declining population, but it allowed the money to follow the people who had the problem.

Today, in this bill, there is an earmark that provides for money now to go to people who may no longer even exist--people who are dead. It is a way that they are trying to change the authorization process we went through so meticulously, so unanimously, in such a way that it undoes it in an appropriations bill. We shouldn't be changing law in an appropriations bill. We especially shouldn't be changing law for a specific area of the country in an appropriations bill. That is why I bring this amendment.

I want to discuss the Ryan White program and the need to ensure that this Labor-HHS bill does not undo our recent work. Last December, after months of negotiations, the House and the Senate passed a new 3-year Ryan White reauthorization. Most importantly, we ensured that those new formulas focused on the lifesaving treatment by including individuals with HIV, not just AIDS.

One of the key items that delayed this reauthorization for months was the careful negotiations surrounding the funding formulas. In that bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we were very clear about the implications of those new formula changes. We provided GAO data runs that were nearly identical to how the funding has been distributed. I hope everybody takes a look at those GAO data runs.

Those funding formulas also included hold-harmless provisions to ensure the formula funding would not decrease by more than 5 percent from the previous year. While I would have preferred no hold-harmless provisions or ones that allowed for more dramatic fluctuations so the money could follow the HIV-infected person, that was what we agreed upon a few short months ago.

We didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes; we provided clear information about the implications about those funding formulas. Now, with one simple pen stroke, the House majority would like to undo all of those carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral compromises and insert a new hold-harmless provision with little thought to how this change will affect others. I am pleased to note that the Senate did not include this egregious provision, and I hope today the Senate will go on record for opposing doing so.

What is even more ridiculous is that this provision primarily benefits San Francisco, a city that continues to receive funding to care for dead people. San Francisco received two-thirds of the $9 million available, racking up $6 million of new dollars. All the while, nearly every other city would have reduced funding just so San Francisco can receive more riches. That additional $6 million is not based on the number of people they are treating or on how many new cases they have. As a hold-harmless provision, it is related to what that city has received before.

As GAO noted in the report last month, even within their current funding, they are receiving money for people who have died. Let me repeat that. GAO, the Government Accountability Office, confirmed that San Francisco currently receives funding under Ryan White for dead people. That is without this additional $6 million earmark. Now, I don't know about my colleagues, but I find this a little reprehensible. Where I come from, that is called cheating. This is patently unfair to those cities and States that are striving to come up with the moneys for basic HIV/AIDS treatment.

House Democrats reneged on a bipartisan, bicameral solution and are trying to slide this authorizing legislation into an appropriations bill, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed. I object to this provision and the implications of it. Rather than providing nearly $10 million to help those cities that don't need it, why aren't we providing funds to those cities with large numbers of people with HIV?

So I offer my amendment to Labor-HHS, Enzi amendment No. 3437. This amendment is quite simple. It states that the Labor-HHS bill cannot be used to undo all of the work we did on Ryan White. We should not be diverting key funds from cities with rising HIV cases to go to San Francisco--a city that is still receiving funds for treating people who have already died from AIDS. If you support keeping people alive, I believe you should also support my amendment. We did last December. We should again. We need to keep it on track to take care of the problem.

I yield some time to my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, such time as he would like.

Mr. President, before we passed the legislation, there were waiting lines in many of the States in this country, lines of people waiting to get treatment and care for AIDS. I am pleased to let you know there are no waiting lines today. No waiting lines anywhere--not in San Francisco, not in Connecticut, not in New Jersey or in New York.

There has been a cut. The cut is guaranteed to be no more than 5 percent under the formula. Now, there has always been supplemental money besides the formula. We did not guarantee the supplemental money. The supplemental money was never guaranteed. And if there are larger cuts, it comes out of the supplemental money, not the formula. So I certainly hope we don't change the formula under the appropriations bill instead of through the proper process, which is authorization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services in North Carolina with some very pertinent quotes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve my remaining time.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, again, I would ask that Senators support my amendment to strike what we are talking about, which is an earmark of $6.2 million for San Francisco and another $3 million for a few other towns.

We are changing law that we passed less than a year ago under an authorization process. It is much harder to pass an authorization bill than it is an appropriations bill. We should not be changing formulas under an appropriations bill.

The GAO numbers that we said would happen are approximately what has happened. Of the $9 million, San Francisco gets $6.2 million. They already get twice as much per HIV/AIDS case as any of the rest of the towns. We put in a hold harmless provision so nobody would lose more than 5 percent of their money. We have been staying by that. We did not guarantee supplemental money. That was done less than a year ago. This is an earmark.

There were waiting lines for people who needed HIV treatment and care. There are no waiting lines today. What we did last year worked. We should not change it under appropriations now.

I ask that you vote for my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, and the chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Harkin and Specter.

Mr. President, I am concerned about a provision in the fiscal year 2008 LHHS appropriations bill that would change the National Institutes of Health, NIH, public access policy to a mandate requiring that private sector commercial and nonprofit journal articles be made freely available for worldwide access on an online NIH Web site.

As ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee, I am concerned that this matter has not been reviewed by our committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction over the NIH. This issue has been handled through the appropriations process, and I believe that the HELP Committee should study the issue and determine the best and most appropriate manner to implement and improve the current voluntary policy. In the Statement of Administration Policy, SAP, issued last week, the administration echoed this sentiment and called on Congress to review the policy and balance the need for public access against the impact it could have on scientific publishing, peer review and intellectual property. The private sector invests hundreds of millions of dollars in the peer review process which vets scientific research, and I believe that a change in the NIH public access policy could undermine that investment.

I would respectfully ask when this bill is conferenced that the section of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill mandating the NIH public access policy be modified so it may receive further study by the committees of jurisdiction to ensure that it achieves its goals without unintended negative consequences.

I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee.

Senator Sessions has offered a very important amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. The amendment restores critical funding to the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards. It is referred to as OLMS.

Funding for the Office of Labor-Management Standards in the current Senate bill is 20 percent below the requested amount, essentially scaled back from the 2006 level. Senator Sessions' amendment restores funding to current fiscal year 2007 levels and adds an additional $3 million to continue audit and enforcement efforts.

What is the Office of Labor-Management Standards and why is it so important? The fact is the Office of Labor-Management Standards is the only agency in the Federal Government that is devoted to protecting the interests of American workers that pay union dues. It requires financial reporting and transparency by labor unions about how they use their members' money, and it investigates and prosecutes union officials who are guilty of fraud or abuse of their members' financial interests.

There should not be any reasonable debate about the importance of financial transparency for any entity, including labor unions. We demand, as we should, corporate transparency in order to protect stockholders. Those who pay union dues are no less entitled to the benefits of financial transparency and fraud protection than those who purchase stock. Indeed, purchasing stock is a voluntary activity, while in many instances the payment of union dues is not voluntary. Protecting the financial interests of working men and women, giving them access to how their money is being used and providing remedies for those instances where the money is misused ought to be a priority, not an afterthought.

It is the height of hypocrisy to talk about protecting the rights of working men and women, or aiding the so-called middle class, while simultaneously slashing the budgets of one of the Federal agencies that protects the financial interests of those who pay union dues.

The Sessions amendment puts a question directly before the Senate. Will we vote down his amendment and allow the Office of Labor- Management Standards funding to be rolled back and go out of our way to send a message to the working men and women who pay union dues that protecting their rights is unimportant? That is the question we are being asked.

I hope we will not tell them that protecting their rights is unimportant. This amendment gives the Senate a chance to go on record about the importance of integrity in leadership elections, finances, and respect for the rights of individuals. We know every dollar in most of our paychecks matters. When we are compelled to give a portion of our paycheck away, either through taxes or union dues, it is an affront for that money to be used to inflate someone else's lifestyle, or to be misused in any other way. That is exactly what the Office of Labor- Management Standards guards against.

OLMS enforces the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a law enacted with bipartisan support, including that of then-Senator Jack Kennedy.

In this administration alone, OLMS has returned nearly $102 million to union members who were robbed. There were only 8.7 million private sector employees represented by unions in 2006. I will restate that number. OLMS has returned $102 million to union members who were robbed. OLMS has indicted 827 individuals and gotten convictions on 790 of them. That is a pretty good record. Again, they have indicted 827, and they have obtained convictions on 790. That is a very impressive conviction rate by any standard.

I have a State-by-State breakdown of those statistics, which I will enter into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

This is so my colleagues can see how many union-represented employees have been protected in their States. These numbers indicate that union corruption is not an issue to which we can turn a blind eye. It may not be seen as politically correct by some in this body to fund an office that audits and investigates unions. But the truth is that having a strong Office of Labor Management Standards is the best thing we can do to help the labor movement. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. When rank-and-file employees feel everything is in the open and they can trust union leaders, they are probably more likely to join one.

It was the outcry of rank-and-file union members themselves that actually created the Office of Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. That act was born in the wake of egregious cases of fraudulent elections, embezzlement, and strong-arm tactics by a number of unions. The law also works to prevent backroom dealings between employers and union leaders that disadvantage the employees. The first section of the law, the Union Members Bill of Rights, was added by then-Senator and later President John F. Kennedy.

I certainly understand that not every department can receive an increase in every budget year. But what this bill does is quite remarkable. It singles out this one office, the Office of Labor- Management Standards, as the only enforcement agency in the whole bill to have its funding decreased.

Senator Sessions and I are asking today that we simply keep the Office of Labor-Management Standards at essentially the same funding level it received last year. The President requested an increase because OLMS has been taking on a number of projects, such as compliance assistance for unions, which would especially be helpful in light of their recent revised disclosure forms.

The funding called for in this amendment will be offset by a modest across-the-board cut in general administrative expenses of the departments funded under this bill. This reduction in administrative expenses is a very small price to pay in order to protect the rights of working men and women. These workers deserve to know how their hard- earned money is being used and deserve to be protected from those who misuse it.

I hope a majority of our colleagues will agree and vote in favor of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the pending legislation, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations legislation. While this legislation is very well intentioned, regretfully, I oppose the bill as it is currently drafted.

The legislation we are currently debating totals approximately $149 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008. This is roughly $9 billion above the level requested by President Bush. Mr. President, $149 billion sounds like a lot of money, but total spending in the legislation is actually much higher--about $605 billion when the mandatory spending is accounted for.

This legislation funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, as well as a host of smaller agencies. I know that all of my colleagues want to ensure these agencies are properly funded and staffed, so that Federal programs have the resources they need to properly function. But the level of spending in this legislation is excessive, and will add to the huge financial burden we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. So while this legislation is well intentioned, I can not support it as it is currently drafted.

My understanding is that, for a variety of reasons, the President will veto the legislation. The administration has been vocal about their concerns since the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution was considered earlier this year, so this veto threat should not come as a surprise to my colleagues. The Senate has been on notice. We need to move past the political theatrics associated with this bill and other appropriations legislation, and get to work on the real challenge of writing a balanced proposal the President is willing to sign. As U.S. Senators, one of our primary duties is to fund the Government. Our Founding Fathers designed checks and balances for a purpose, one being to force compromise on key, and sometimes contentious, legislative products. We ought to be thinking about--and debating--the type of legislation that will pass muster on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. We owe that to our constituents and to the American people.

I would also like to address other concerns I have with the legislation. The committee-reported bill contains stem cell language that overturns Presidential order, making more embryonic stem cell lines available for Government research funding. Currently, only embryonic lines created before July 9, 2001, are eligible for Federal funding. This legislation would extend that date until June 15, 2007. I do not support this provision as part of this vehicle. Earlier this year, we had a larger debate on the stem cell issue. I believe that we owe it to the American public to work on real solutions to this situation and not just keep moving a potential date. For these reasons, I was pleased to hear yesterday that the bill manager decided to remove this provision from the underlying committee-reported legislation.

The committee-reported bill also addresses funding for September 11 workers. Specifically, this legislation provides an additional $55 million for treatment, screening and monitoring for 9/11 related health issues. This is in addition to the approximately $45 million that was included in the emergency war supplemental earlier this year. In addition, this legislation for the first time expands funding to cover all city residents. The HELP Committee has been looking into this issue for well over a year. We should agree on the facts regarding worker health before we broadly expand current spending to cover residents. In addition, there are substantial unspent funds already available: out of a total of $92 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and currently proposed under the President's 2008 budget, grantees have actually drawn down just $2 million in payments on fiscal year 2006 funds.

This legislation also cuts funding for the Office of Labor and Management Standards--known as OLMS--by $2 million, from $47.7 million to $45.7 million, while the President's request is $56.8 million. OLMS is responsible for overseeing union disclosure and corruption. This may seem like a small amount of money considering the scope of the overall legislation, but cutting funds targeted for policing corruption as a ``cost saving'' measure isn't a good way to build credibility with the American people. We must do better. With Sarbanes-Oxley, we made big business more transparent. We need to do the same thing with big unions. The Office of Labor and Management Standards can and must do exactly that. OLMS must be allowed and funded to do what we have told them to do. The transparency and accountability is for the benefit of the union members. Of course, this might be just like the card check bill where labor union management was trying to take away the right

for potential members to have a secret ballot. Unions are for the members, not for the union bosses. Members have a right to know. That is what the law passed in 1959 was and is all about. Enforce the law. Be sure union members have a right to know.

I would also like to point out that the legislation does not contain funding for the National All Schedules Prescription Reporting Act-- NASPER. Known as NASPER, this law was designed to assist States in setting up prescription drug monitoring programs--to make sure people can't get multiple refills of their restricted prescriptions merely by crossing State lines. Instead, this legislation funds an unauthorized similar program through the Justice Department. Congress should first fund the programs that are authorized by committees that have jurisdiction over the measures. As the lead Republican on the HELP Committee, I know the value of the authorization process--Federal programs are reviewed by Senators and staff to ensure there is value for program beneficiaries and taxpayers alike. Funding unauthorized programs usurps the entire authorizing committee process.

All that being said, there are many provisions in this legislation that are not objectionable, and some of which I support. Like previous years, the bill contains language that prohibits the Labor Secretary from issuing regulations related to the Workforce Investment Act, known as WIA, until the Congress has reauthorized the program. Reauthorizing WIA is a bipartisan priority for the HELP Committee, and a top personal goal of mine that I have been working toward for many years. Congress should first act to reauthorize the law before the administration moves forward with regulations. This reauthorization is long overdue. Modernizing job training programs will result in better, higher paying jobs. Under my chairmanship, we passed this reauthorization--but it was held by Democrats who would not allow the appointment of conferees because of concerns they would not be included in the process. That argument no longer holds true. They control a majority in each legislative body, and a majority on conference committees. Congress needs to pass this legislation to provide training for current and future jobs so Americans have the skills they need to get the best jobs--instead of sending them overseas because we don't have trained workers at home.

This legislation also restores the authority of the Railroad Retirement Board Office of the Inspector General to conduct Railroad Medicare audits and investigations. Similar language was included in previous years, but was dropped in the conference with the House. My hope is that this year we will be successful in restoring that authority. In September, Senator Kennedy and I, together with Senators Baucus and Grassley, weighed in on this issue with the Appropriations Committee, thanking them for including this language in their bill, and urging them to fight for this provision in conference. Restoring the ability to audit is fiscally responsible, and is the right thing to do.

In closing, while there are valuable provisions in the Labor-HHS spending bill that ought to be enacted, I will be voting against this legislation because of the excessive total spending level, as well as some objectionable policy language that I have discussed today.

I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues on a compromise product that can garner support from both the legislative as well as the executive branch of our Government.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, recently I got to participate in the dedication of the first conservation easement in Sheridan County, WY. I attended grade school in Sheridan and graduated from high school there. I earned the Boy Scout merit badges I needed to become an Eagle Scout while I lived there. One of the badges was bicycling. It required several 25-mile rides. My first ride of that length went from Sheridan to Big Horn and beyond. That ride was on the highway. Today it would be much more dangerous as the area has developed and more people drive. So I am glad for this new conservation easement--what I hope will be the first of many conservation easements--that will make it possible to go from Sheridan to Big Horn on a scenic path by the river that will provide safety and great views.

I want to congratulate the Volunteers of America for their great role in this achievement and ``first.'' I want to thank and congratulate the Sheridan County Commission and the city of Sheridan, mayor and council for their great cooperation. I especially want to thank the members of the Sheridan Land Trust for their effort and vision. This is the kind of community, the kind of people, I remember growing up in Sheridan.

I was glad to play a small role in getting the 501c(3) certification for nonprofit status pushed through the system. I also did some work for conservation easements in, of all places, the pension bill last year. I got to chair the conference committee for the pension bill last year. At the end of the process, leadership from both sides of the aisle brought me a small tax package to include. I mentioned that I had a couple of small provisions I wanted included. One was a provision to get Wyoming abandoned mine land money released back to Wyoming. I found the power of a chairmanship. The abandoned mine land money will amount to $1.6 billion for Wyoming. Another provision included was for conservation easements--conservation easements that would make it possible for the average person to participate as well as those with a lot of money. The bad news is that act is available only until Dec 31 of this year--unless it gets extended. The good news is this bicycle- hiking-running-nature path could be finished from Sheridan to Big Horn this year with some tax incentives. I will be working to extend the incentive.

It is very important that I share with the Nation the words of Mayor Kinsky at the dedication of this first conservation easement in Sheridan County. It is the finest description of what we are trying to do that I have heard. Here is what he said:

Look about you--the mountains, the creek, the wildlife. It

is as God made it. This is how it was before we came. Because

of what we do here today--preserving this place as it is,

unspoiled--it will be here for those who follow us.

There are those who say we inherited this place from our

grandparents. I believe we are borrowing it from our

grandchildren.

As such, we have a duty to preserve--for them--the beauty

that had drawn us here, and holds us here.

Fifty years from now, the town will have changed. Coffeen

Avenue will look different, our downtown will look different.

But this area will look as we see it today.

Future generations will not recall who we are, or what we

say. But they will recap the benefit of what we do here

today. We may hope that they will look out on what we have

left them and say, ``These were people of vision. These were

people who cared about the future.''

It is proper that this be done in a manner fitting of the

character of our people. This easement comes about not as a

mandate of government, but as a gift--given with love--to the

community and future.

The purpose of the Sheridan Community Land Trust is to hold

such gifts, preserving them for our heirs. It is our hope

that many more in the community may be moved to make similar

gifts to generations to come.

With history the final judge or our deeds, we ask God's

blessing and help, but knowing here on earth God's work must

truly be our own.

Mayor Kinsky, thank you for those words. May they serve as a challenge and example to everyone to do what you and the greater Sheridan community have done.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to share a joy as though in Morning Business, and I ask unanimous consent to have my whole statement appear in case I am not able to make it through this emotional sharing.

Mr. President, I am a grampa again. Incidentally, that is spelled with an ``m,'' not an ``n,'' and no ``d.'' Grampa. It is the greatest title anyone can have. It is really indescribable, unless you have felt the thrill, felt the love, felt the awe.

This weekend, my son and his wife had a daughter, Lilly Grace. My son, like me, had the good fortune to over-marry to Danielle, a delightful young lady from Kentucky whom he met here in Washington. She is one of the most organized and focused people I know. My son Brad and daughter-in-law Danielle already have a son, Trey, who first made me a grampa. Now they have a daughter, Lilly Grace Enzi. I can't begin to share the emotion and feeling that overwhelms me today. It is such an incredible feeling to hold another generation in your hands, to see such a miniature person and such a huge miracle.

Danielle and Lilly Grace had extremely fortunate timing for my wife Diana and me. Trey and Lilly were both born when we were close by in Wyoming. Trey was born when we were attending a University of Wyoming football game, just 45 miles away. Lilly was born during a Redskins football game when we were just 2 blocks from the hospital. Brad checked Danielle into the hospital at 11 Sunday morning, and at exactly 2 p.m., October 14, that Sunday, we had a granddaughter. Lilly Grace weighed 7 pounds, 2 ounces,

and was 20 inches long, with delicate hands and long fingers.

Danielle came through, as is her nature, invigorated and enthusiastic. You would not have known by looking at her face, except for the aura of a mother, that she had just given birth. The rest of us were emotional wrecks. When Danielle went into labor, I rejoiced at the timing and extended the weekend another day and had the pleasure of holding that baby and watching her breathe and move ever so delicately, with a thousand different expressions, and listened to all the sounds she made. Of course, I had to let Diana hold her a little, too, and her mom and dad even wanted turns.

If you would have told me that I would spend time just gazing at the miracle of life and having only that thought for hours, I probably wouldn't have believed you. But I have some great instant replay memories of that little face and those moving hands and all those blankets and the cap they use to hold in the body heat locked in my mind, and I am constantly doing instant replays for myself and thanking God for the opportunities he has given me--from finding Diana, to learning about prayer with our first child, the daughter who was born premature and who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is, to the birth of our son, to the birth of our youngest daughter, to helping me through open-heart surgery so that I might have this chance to hold yet another generation in my hands.

I think of the prayer of Jabez in Chronicles where he says, ``Lord, continue to bless me, indeed,'' and to that I add my thanks for this and all the blessings, noticed and, unfortunately, often unnoticed.

So now I am grampa. That is not grandfather. That is too stilted. Years ago, my daughter gave me a hand-stitched wall hanging that says: Any man can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad.

That is a challenge for grampas to live up to, too. Again, I note that the name is not grandpa. That is a title a little too elevated. This grampa is with an ``m'' and no ``d.'' That is what I called my Grampa Bradley, who took me on some wonderful adventures and taught me a lot of important lessons, including fishing. Now it is my turn to live up to that valued name. He liked being called grampa, and I am now delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name, too. I wish I could adequately share with you the joy that is in my heart.

Now, some would say: Lilly Grace, you have been born at a scary time--a time of fear; fear of almost everything: fear of war, fear of people from other countries, fear of our neighborhoods. As an Enzi, we have faith that doing the right thing, doing your best, and treating others as they want to be treated will solve most problems, which will overcome fear.

In my job, I get to hear a lot of disparaging comments about our country and our Government. But for you, granddaughter, you are lucky to be born in this country. I have been to a lot of places in the world now, and I can tell you that there are none anyone would trade for the United States. In my job, I often have to remind people that I never hear of anyone trying to get out of our country. I do hear of millions who would like to be here.

Now, as you, precious baby, get older, if things don't change, you will hear people who think that the Government owes them a living and all kinds of guarantees, and you will hear people portray business as greedy, and you will see attempts to keep faith and God out of your vocabulary. And all those things could come to pass, except for you. You and others will know how to do the right thing and you will value the way our country was founded and has grown.

Lilly, granddaughter, welcome to this world of promise and hope and faith and love. I am excited to have you in my life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to express my concern about the current agenda of the U.S. Senate.

For about 16 days, we have been debating the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. I do not think that any Member of this Chamber believes this is an unimportant or throwaway piece of legislation. This bill is about our troops and our veterans. It is about their health care. It is about their equipment. It is about how we treat those individuals who have put on the uniforms of our Armed Forces and served our Nation.

The Defense bill before us authorizes $24.6 billion for the defense health program, including a $1.9 billion adjustment to fund TRICARE benefits. The bill includes authorization for the purchase of upgrades to Bradley fighting vehicles and the purchase of Stryker vehicles. This legislation authorized research into technology that will keep our troops safer while they carry out their current missions and research into medical technology that will help with battlefield diagnostics and care for any wounded warrior.

In the midst of considering this troop-related bill, we are now considering amendments on items completely unrelated to the men and women in uniform. This kind of political gamesmanship is precisely why congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low.

Are we going to provide the resources our men and women in the military need by passing this Defense bill or are we going to stuff this bill so full of nondefense policy and programs that the legislation blows up like a makeshift terrorist explosive device? The majority party is in charge of getting critical bills through, yet they are delaying passage of these bills by trying to empty their outbox full of controversial issues. Unfortunately, the authors of these unrelated special interest amendments have chosen the latter.

The first amendment set to come before us for a vote is legislation on hate crimes. When it is the appropriate time to be debating the merits of a hate crime bill then I will debate that. Debating it in relation to a bill we need in order to provide for our military is not the appropriate time. We have also been told to expect amendments related to immigration. The Senate earlier this year spent weeks on immigration legislation--that is where debate on that amendment should occur.

As my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, stated, there is a time and a place for everything. A bill drafted to address our national defense and our troops is not the place for these amendments.

Instead of focusing on the needs of our troops in the field, our wounded warriors needing medical attention, and our veterans who have served us all, the authors of these amendments seek to distract our attention and delay progress on this bill.

I sincerely hope all Members of the Senate will put these issues aside for a more appropriate time for debate and let us proceed on improving the lives of our troops. Let's put our troops first on the Senate agenda.

Madam President, I thank you, and I especially thank the Senator from Indiana who has been waiting an hour and a half to speak and was kind enough to let us fit into the schedule. We needed to do this because so often around here, when something is done in such a bipartisan manner that it passes unanimously, nobody ever hears about it.

This isn't something we are trying to force through, this isn't something that there are a lot of arguments about, but it is something essential to the American people: their food and drug safety. We are the best country in the world at doing it. We can do it better. This bill lets us do it better. Is it a perfect bill? That never happens around here. Is it a big victory for patients and children? Absolutely.

This actually incorporates four reauthorizations and one massive reform. We take care of a lot of things in this package that normally would take a lot of hours on the floor, but because of the participation from both sides of the aisle, and from everybody intensively on the committee, we were able to put together a bill that solves a lot of problems.

The FDA's choice before was to pull a drug off the market or to leave it on. If it had some kind of a problem that could be solved some simple way, it wasn't an option; pull it off or leave it on. We gave them a toolbox, a whole bunch of different things that they can now do so that drugs will be approved faster, and then when that clinical trial that we call the whole population of the United States kicks in, there is a mechanism for following all of those and finding small samples of problems, solutions to those small samples of problems, and the drug that is working for people across this Nation doesn't have to be pulled off the market. It can still work for the people who aren't affected by an adverse reaction. That is a major change we have been able to make.

I wish to thank all the people involved, particularly the people on the committee who took separate parts of this and dug into it and came up with solutions--not solutions that would polarize us but solutions that would bring us together. The American people don't get to hear much about the solutions that bring us together. They get to hear hour after hour after hour of the things that have been polarized and that drive us apart. I want them to know there are things that get solved around here such as food and drug safety, a big thing for this country. It was done, and it was done unanimously. Now that means the House's version that was negotiated with the Senate's version was put together in such a way that we agreed with it. America needs to know that.

The FDA is the gold standard among public health regulators the world over. For the past century, the FDA has protected the public--from filthy conditions in meatpacking plants to thalidomide, which caused thousands of birth defects in Western Europe. The FDA's constant vigilance is something we have come to depend on every day to protect us and our children.

Beginning in January 2005, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions conducted a top-to-bottom review of the FDA's drug safety and approval processes. Given the limitations we identified during our review of FDA, I strongly felt it was necessary to correct those problems and ensure that FDA has the right tools to address drug safety after the drug is on the market. New authorities were clearly needed, and H.R. 3580, the Food and Drug Administration amendments of 2007, provides those authorities.

The changes made in the drug safety components of this legislation are critical to restoring peace of mind to Americans who want to be assured that the drugs they take to treat illnesses and chronic medical conditions can be relied upon and trusted. The broad new authorities in this legislation are the most significant change to FDA in at least a decade. The sweeping new authorities provided by this bill will only strengthen the agency's ability to safeguard the American people.

This bill gives FDA a full toolbox of options for dealing with potential safety problems, even if they are discovered after a drug is first marketed. FDA will be able to proactively react to additional safety information whenever that safety information is discovered, even after the drug is on the market. FDA will have the ability to identify side effects through active surveillance, and the authority to request a study or clinical trial to learn more about a potential safety problem. But perhaps most significantly, FDA will be able to obtain timely label changes in response to that safety information.

The label is the most important communication mechanism for patients and providers about a drug's benefits and risks. Patients and doctors need to know that they can rely on the drug label for accurate information. To ensure that science is the guiding principle for all information with the drug label, the FDA must be the sole arbiter of what is and is not in the label. This legislation provides one strong, clear pathway to update a drug label in response to new information. We rely on FDA to get the label right, and this bill provides broad authority to do that, significantly strengthening FDA's hand in securing changes to the label. By providing this single, expedited pathway for safety labeling changes, it is clear that Congress intends there to be one standard for protecting all Americans the FDA gold standard. We should not be second-guessing the FDA and its science- based decisions but continuing to rely on the agency to provide accurate information regarding a drug's benefits and risks.

I thank the Senator from Indiana for letting us take a few minutes to voice this so there would be some knowledge out there of something happening that is good and in a bipartisan way and gets accomplished. I wish I had time to name all the people and the contributions they made to this. I hope people will take a look at the record and see all of these people, not just Senators, not just House Members, but the staffs who worked on this overtime, for hours at night, for hours on the weekend, to be able to resolve it by today. Why is today important? Because if we didn't get this finished today and assure that the companies which help fund the efforts of the FDA would come in, there would have had to be RIF notices to about 2,000 Federal employees today who would be laid off. So we were up against a tight time deadline and we met the time deadline and did it in a very bipartisan way.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of HR 3580, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments of 2007. This comprehensive bill will enhance drug safety and provide key resources to the Food and Drug Administration. I am pleased that the House passed this bill yesterday, and that we have a chance to act on it today. It's been a long road for this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes and endorse the most comprehensive drug safety overt1aul in more than a decade.

This key FDA package includes four reauthorizations that must be done this year, along with essential new authorities for FDA to be able to react in a timely way to any safety problems that arise after a drug has been brought to market. With this new toolbox, FDA has the ability to identify side effects after the drug is marketed through active surveillance. FDA also has the authority to request labeling changes in response to new safety information, as well as a separate study or clinical trial to learn more about a particular, potential safety problem.

Not everyone got everything they wanted in this bill. That is as true of me as it is of anyone. I am deeply concerned about the provisions related to labeling changes and liability, given that we do not fully understand the implications of that language. This new rule of construction was part of the House-passed language and not something the Senate fully debated. If I would have drafted the bill, that language would not have been included. But this is a compromise bill, one that provides important new authorities, while preserving the quality we have come to expect of the agency. The changes made in the drug safety components of this legislation are critical to restoring peace of mind to Americans who want to be assured that the drugs they purchase to treat illnesses and chronic medical conditions can be relied upon and trusted. By acting today, we are ensuring that nearly 2000 dedicated public servants at FDA can continue to evaluate drugs and devices in a timely and thorough way, speeding these discoveries to patients while protecting the public health.

These new authorities will assist the agency in quickly and effectively responding to potential safety issues, including making labeling changes and requiring post-market studies to more fully examine potential risks. In addition, this bill expands access to clinical trials information for patients and providers and creates new methods to address potential conflicts of interest of advisory committee members to ensure greater accountability and preserve scientific integrity.

FDA currently has no mechanism for active, routine surveillance of potential safety problems. It cannot easily detect safety problems after a drug has been put on the market. This legislation fixes that challenge and ensures that FDA has the right tools to address drug safety after the drug is on the market. The legislation creates the capacity for routine, active, safety monitoring using large linked databases, what I like to call ``health IT for drug safety.'' I want to thank Senator Gregg for being the champion of this provision and ensuring that we crafted this provision appropriately.

This bill also includes renewal of two key provisions focused on children--the ``Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act'' and the ``Pediatric Research Equity Act,'' which together ensure that drugs used in children are tested on children; as well as a proposal that will increase our ability to develop medical devices for children.

There has been a lot of attention paid to medical products in this debate. But we mustn't forget the ``F'' in FDA. This bill contains important food safety provisions to better protect our pet food supply, and track when food is adulterated.

I want to thank my colleagues Senators Roberts and Harkin for their tireless efforts to provide an appropriate balance for direct-to- consumer advertising. I would also like to thank one of my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Representative Schakowsky of Illinois, for her constructive involvement in these issues. It was not an easy task to reconcile some very different opinions, and I am so pleased that we were able to reach a resolution to this issue that we could all support.

I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Allard, Senator Bond, Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton and others for their leadership on behalf of kids. Finally, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his work on the antibiotics and other Hatch-Waxman issues.

On the other side of the Capitol, I would like to thank Chairman Dingell, Ranking Member Barton, and

Representatives Pallone and Deal for shepherding this legislation through the process.

I want to take a few minutes to thank the staff, who have spent countless hours over the past months negotiating and drafting this legislation. This dedication to public service often overlooked. They spent many evenings and weekends away from their homes and their families.

My health team worked overtime to get this bill to the floor and passed in the Senate. I would first like to thank my Health Policy Director, Shana Christrup. I also want to greatly thank Amy Muhlberg, for her work on drug safety, food safety and PDUFA. Her knowledge and drafting skills were central to this bill. I would also thank Keith Flanagan for his work on the children's statutes in this bill and Dave Schmickel, our resident drug patent expert for his work on citizens petitions and antibiotics issues. I would also like to thank Todd Spangler who provided the required backup that goes with moving a bill of this magnitude. Finally, I would like to thank my Staff Director, Katherine McGuire, whose steady hand and negotiating and communication skills provided the cement for the entire process.

I would also thank Ilyse Schuman, my chief counsel for her precision and attention to the details. Finally, I thank Amy Angelier Shank for her great work on the budget aspects of the bill and my press team Craig Orfield and Mike Mahaffey. My Chief of Staff Flip McConnaughey was great at putting out brush fires throughout the process.

Megan Hauck with Senator McConnell's office, David Boyer with the White House, Craig Burton and Vince Ventimiglia at HHS and Stephen Mason of FDA were key to helping with both policy and process issues throughout the negotiations.

On Senator Kennedy's staff, I would like to thank: Michael Myers, David Bowen, and David Dorsey. Senator Kennedy's staffers were reasonable negotiators throughout the process and open and patient to hearing all sides of any issue.

On the other side of the Capitol, I would like to thank Chairman Dingell, as well as John Ford, Virgil Miller and Pete Goodloe of his staff for their tireless work. Bobby Clark with Mr. Pallone and John Little with Mr. Deal were also instrumental in the negotiations. Ranking Member Barton and his staff Ryan Long and Nandan Kenkeremath were outstanding. Yesterday, when this bill passed the House, Mr. Barton reported that Ryan had been up all night working on the bill and was therefore wearing the same clothes as the day before. I would like to state for the record that all my staff showered today--I think.

Warren Burke with House Legislative Counsel and Stacy Kern-Sheerer of Senate Legislative Counsel were tremendous in handling a long and complex bill with lots of moving parts. There would be no bill without their efforts.

I would like to thank Senator Hatch and his staff Pattie DeLoatche, Trisha Knight, Remy Yucel and Matt Sandgren for their efforts on the bill overall, but particularly on the Citizen Petitions, antibiotics, and enantiomers provisions. Leigh-Anne Ross of Senator Cochran's staff and Landon Stropko of Representative Cubin's office were also key on these antibiotic provisions.

With Senator Gregg's office, and for their assistance with ``health IT for drug safety,'' I thank Dave Fisher and Liz Wroe. Stephanie Carlton, from Senator Coburn's staff and Jenny Ware with Senator Burr were also integral to many parts of the bill.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, and his staff Jennifer Swenson, for their incredible work on direct-to- consumer advertising. I also thank my colleague Senator Harkin and his staffer Janelle Krishnamoorthy for their hard work on this issue. Lindsay McAllister of Representative Schakowsky's office was also integral to the success of these negotiations.

I would like to thank Isaac Edwards and Amanda Makki of Senator Murkowski's staff, Tyler Thompson with Senator Isakson, and Jennifer Claypool with Senator Allard for their hard work and dedication.

Ellie Dehoney of Senator Brown's office was critical to reaching agreement on the Citizen Petitions and tropical disease provisions. Melanie Benning of Senator Brownback's office was also instrumental on the tropical disease issue.

I would like to thank Mary-Sumpter Johnson with Senator Alexander, Kelly Childress with Representative Rogers, Jennifer Nieto with Representative Eshoo, Ann Gavaghan with Senator Clinton, Tamar Magarik and Jeremy Sharp with Senator Dodd for their exceptional work on the pediatric provisions.

And last, but not least, Cameron Bruett of Senator Chambliss's Agriculture Committee staff, Adela Ramos of Chairman Harkin's Agriculture Committee staff, and David Lazarus of Senator Durbin's staff were extraordinarily helpful on the food safety provisions in the bill.

As you can see, this was a real team effort. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. Patients are waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues and sponsors of this legislation, Senators Domenici and Kennedy, for their long and tireless work bringing us to passage of this bill tonight.

This legislation is literally years, if not decades in the making, and reflects countless hours of sweat and negotiation.

With much effort and indispensable help, we managed to bring together long-opposed advocates from the mental health advocacy, provider, employer, and insurance communities around a solid, responsible, bipartisan, and long-overdue bill.

Passage of this bill is a beacon example of what can be accomplished when people roll up their sleeves and work together in a bipartisan way.

This legislation will bring fairness and relief to millions of Americans suffering from mental illness. The road is not yet over, but tonight is a tremendous step forward.

Mr. President, I, too, congratulate my colleague on his official first speech, so I will officially give my first welcome. He and I and the people of Wyoming know this is not his first speech, and definitely not his first effort. He has been helping people in Wyoming. He gave up a great orthopedic practice that he founded, which is a disappointment to a lot of people in Wyoming who were actually still hoping they would have an operation from him. But because of the quickness of the appointment, he was back here, ready to work, and at work. He has done a phenomenal job since he has been here.

I am glad to have the help explaining Wyoming, as he did so aptly in this speech. There is a lot of work to be done here, teaching the East about the West so they understand better that one size fits all does not work.

I have been across Wyoming and talking with my colleagues here explaining what a hard worker and a fast learner the new Senator is. He has certainly proven that on his own. He did mention the 30 town meetings he held prior to September 1. That leaves out a lot. Besides 30 town meetings, he had meetings with officials, he had meetings with special groups, he went to a lot of events. He was even in a bocce ball tournament in Cheyenne, where he narrowly lost to the reporter who wrote a wonderful three-page article after that.

When we talk about 30 town meetings in Wyoming, we are talking about one of the bigger States in the United States. We are a small population, but we are a big State. To get to those people you have to travel a lot of miles and talk to a lot of small groups. He does that willingly. He shows up at everything. I am pretty sure, by my count, he was in Jackson six times during August. Jackson is on the far side of the State where the Grand Tetons are. We hope everybody in America visits there and visits there frequently. It is just on the south of the Yellowstone, which is even a little better known, but it is on the far side of the State. It is very difficult to get to from anywhere in Wyoming. It is pretty easy to get to from Houston or Atlanta or Minneapolis, but it is very difficult to get to from Wyoming. He was there six times. That means traveling probably 250 miles a trip, each way, to get there, and then to get back on schedule, meeting with the constituents with whom he promised to meet. That is the kind of dedication he has. He did a marvelous job of answering questions, gathering information. He is a good listener, but he is also a good doer.

He served in the State senate. That has been a training ground for people who have served here for years. That legislative experience makes a difference in how fast you can adjust to the way things operate here compared to the way things operate in the State legislature-- compared to not knowing about either one of them. He had some marvelous achievements while he was in the State. He has mentioned some things he wants to get done here. Watch out for him. He will get those done. Help him out. They are worth doing.

He is a tremendous asset to the Senate, and I am very proud to welcome him as my colleague and part of the delegation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time I take, and I do rise to speak in support of the conference report under consideration today.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and his staff for their participation and the way they kept us informed during the conference. I have to say ``kept informed'' because we were not at the conference, except for the one kind of superficial meeting we had where we got to make speeches, but they did a good job of keeping us informed. This seems to be the way that reconciliation happens. I know when the Republicans were in the majority that is the way it happened, so I am not surprised that when the Democrats are in the majority that is the way it happened. But it was very helpful to be kept informed on what was happening.

There are quite a few things that the reconciliation bill does, but I have to mention that without the reauthorization package it is very incomplete. We are urging the House to hurry and do the reauthorization part so that we truly have a higher education package. Without that, there are a lot of things that are left out, and I will go into that a little bit this morning in more detail following the vote.

This isn't the first time we have reduced the subsidies to lenders and provided greater benefits to students. Two years ago, in the conference that I was referring to, we produced a report that found billions in savings by further reducing subsidies to lenders and applied those savings to increased grants for low-income students, expanded loan forgiveness, and reduced interest rates on undergraduate subsidized loans.

We all agree if there is an excess subsidy in the student loan program, it should be eliminated. The key question is how much excess there is and how to eliminate it. There are no clear-cut answers to these questions. One approach included in this conference report is the reduction of the special allowance payments to the lenders.

I am pleased that we retained the provisions that recognize the unique role that our not-for-profit lenders have in providing information and services to students and their families. Not-for-profit lenders focus on communities and they serve students locally. For this reason, we maintained the 15-basis-point differential cut in the special allowance payments between for-profit and not-for-profit lenders. The

cut in the special allowance payments to for-profit lenders is 55 basis points, and for not-for-profit lenders it is 40 basis points.

Now, we took a first step in this conference report toward refining the way those levels are determined by including an auction pilot that lets the marketplace determine the appropriate level for the Parent PLUS Program, which is about 10 percent of the loans.

This conference report provides additional need-based grant aid which is a critical component of increasing access to and the affordability of college. Over 55 percent of the savings are dedicated to increasing the Pell grant award. In the next 5 years, low-income undergraduate students will see the maximum Pell grant award increased by more than $1,000. Additionally, we increase the income protection allowance so that students are not penalized for working and saving for college, and we raise the income threshold for automatic eligibility for a maximum Pell grant.

I am also pleased we were able to retain the guarantee rate on student loans at 97 percent for all lenders through fiscal year 2012. In this way we avoid the disruption in the student loan market and ensure that students have access to Federal student loans. However, I wonder if we may be going too far in cutting the support for the largest Federal financial aid program, the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The challenge we face is that we will not know until it is too late whether cuts we have made have undermined the stability of the program and created hardships for the students it serves.

Despite the emphasis on increased grant aid, the claim of increased savings for borrowers has a hollow ring. Reducing student loan interest rates is a good sound bite. It doesn't do anything to help students pay tuition bills.

Further, in reality, cutting the interest rate in half, to 3.4 percent, will help only a small group of borrowers for the loans they take out for 1 year of their education, 4 years from now. Then the benefit disappears. That is going to be a surprise to a lot of people, and it has already happened once. We were chastised when we were doing the last reconciliation for a raise in the interest rates. That is because the interest rate that had been lowered expired and there was not the money to do the further cut. This may well happen again.

A quick calculation of the real benefit borrowers will receive shows that at a cost of $6 billion to taxpayers, individuals, will see a savings of only $6 a month. That may be one latte; it may be two lattes. It is kind of hard to tell in today's market in coffee. I am astounded. I remember the days when it was a nickel a cup. I would much rather see the $6 billion go to help real low-income students through a Pell grant increase than just for a hollow sound bite.

Finally, as an accountant and member of the Budget Committee, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we are debating a conference report on reconciliation, and that is a process designed to reduce the Federal deficit, not to create new mandatory programs and increase entitlement spending. I am disappointed to say that the net savings for deficit reduction in this conference report is only $750 million.

I wish to remind my colleagues that a few weeks ago, we considered reconciliation and higher education reauthorization together. The Senate did it right. We voted on reconciliation one day, and the next voting day we had, we covered reauthorization. Both bills passed with strong bipartisan support because we not only achieved savings but we ensured the quality and effectiveness of our Federal student aid programs. Therefore, my support for this conference report is limited by the fact that we are not also considering the larger higher education reauthorization package.

We have used this chart before when we were debating the reauthorization. This chart shows the pieces that are left out when we do not do the reauthorization. I urge the House to finish up this part of the package so that it can accompany the reconciliation package. It is not complete without both.

I do have some comments by House Ranking Member McKeon, which is an excerpt from the conference committee when it was held. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

It puts the emphasis on some things that will be left out if we do not do it and also some things that I mentioned.

I want to add some more emphasis to what is not before us today, and that is the legislation that addresses the concerns about rooting out the bad actors in student lending. It doesn't include protecting students and families who are borrowing money for college, and ensuring that students and parents receive sound, honest advice about their student loans. Students and parents must have access to the information they need to understand and manage their debt. We must ensure that the investment our students and families make in terms of time and money is a good one, that they are confident there will be financial aid to assist continued access to a college education.

Further, it is the reauthorization bill that contains the evaluation of the auction pilot that will help determine whether the auction model should be used in the future to establish viable special allowance rates. That is the way to test it.

Higher education is the onramp to success in the global economy, and it is our responsibility to make sure everyone can access that opportunity and reach their goals. The choice of whether to pursue a postsecondary education is no longer an option. We need to make sure individuals have all the tools they need to understand and shape their future. This conference report provides some important tools but not nearly enough to complete the job.

We are only seeing a fraction of the higher education picture by considering the conference report separately from the larger reauthorization package. What is before us today focuses only on a narrow slice of the Higher Education Act, one piece which is dependent on other foundational programs that are not part of the reconciliation. You can see that on this chart: Reconciliation takes care of a little bit; reauthorization takes care of the rest.

It takes important steps to increase assistance for students seeking a college degree, but it is only a Band-Aid without the important bipartisan reforms included in the reauthorization bill. We are cutting the bottom line without dealing with the quality and substance of these important programs.

The American success story of higher education is at risk of losing the very qualities that made it great--competition, innovation, and access for all. Our challenge is to make higher education more accessible, affordable, and accountable. By considering only reconciliation, we are not meeting this challenge head-on. We are leaving the job undone.

But we need the provisions in the reauthorization bill--better college cost information to help parents and students make sound choices; year-round Pell to reduce time-to-degree; and FAFSA, which is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. It is a document that has been rather intimidating to students as they think about filling out this form in order to qualify for financial aid. The form itself has kept people from applying. We have reduced that in the reauthorization bill to a one-page document.

I reiterate, it is the reauthorization bill that contains all the reforms and accountability provisions to address the problems that have come to light in the loan programs--the bad actors with conflicts of interest, the lack of useful, necessary information to enable borrowers to make informed decisions about loan provisions and repayment, and the need for better controls over access to the National Student Loan Data System so borrowers' privacy is protected.

We know America's ability to compete in a global economy depends on increasing the number of students entering and completing college. But of the 75 percent of high school seniors who continue their study, only 50 percent of them receive a degree in 5 years after enrolling in college and only 25 percent of them receive a bachelor's degree or higher. These numbers are even worse for students from low-income families. It is important to ensure that more students enroll in college prepared to learn and that more students have the support they need to complete college with the knowledge and skills to be successful. Low-income students who are striving to attend college need to know there is financial aid available for them to access college or career and technical education. It is the reauthorization bill that has all the support programs for first-generation and low-income students and the institutional support programs for minority-serving institutions.

For years, institutions of higher education and employers have expressed their dissatisfaction about the fact that our high school graduates need remedial help in order to do college-level work or to participate in the workforce. Nearly one-third of entering college freshmen take at least one remedial course. Each year, taxpayers pay an estimate $1 billion to $2 billion to provide remedial education to students at our public universities and community colleges.

What will help this situation? Not only do students need better guidance selecting courses in high school that will enable them to succeed in the postsecondary education, they need better prepared teachers. It is the reauthorization bill that has the partnership programs to support teacher preparation so that all children have qualified teachers to guide their learning experiences. Also, to be competitive in the global economy we need to be able to communicate with people all over the world. It is the reauthorization bill that authorizes the programs that support foreign languages and international education.

I began my remarks by stating that I am in support of the conference report. It is clear that I am equally committed to seeing that we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. We need both pieces to get it done right.

I thank Senator Kennedy for his commitment to moving the reauthorization forward and including several Republican priorities in this conference report. While this report is not perfect, taken as a whole and with its emphasis on providing additional need-based grant aid to low-income students, I believe we have reached a reasonable approach to helping students pay for college.

I thank everyone who has been involved in the process.

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

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

I, too, thank Senator Alexander for his commitment to students in his State and across the country, and to the public purpose mission of nonprofits, such as EdSouth and, in my home State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Student Loan Corporation. I appreciate him taking the time to clarify this issue. I, too, agree with my colleague regarding his explanation of the intent of the bill with regard to nonprofit entities that provide Federal student loans through eligible lender trustees. And I join Chairman Kennedy in his commitment to make any further clarifications necessary to ensure that existing nonprofit loan providers that use eligible lender trustees will be able to benefit from the differential special allowance payment.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am always a little disconcerted that what the American public gets to watch is the debate on the Senate floor. This is not where we get most of the work done. This is not where there is agreement. This is where there is the disagreement and the branding of the different parties. It is important, but it is not what gets things done.

We have a bill before us today, and the Senate-passed reconciliation bill had a vote of 78 to 18. And we had some of these same discussions. Those discussions are important. As the only accountant in the Senate, I am appalled by the way we score bills around here, the way we come up with the different provisions, the different arguments that get made on the floor. But I would say the provisions of this conference report closely parallel many of the provisions in the Senate-passed bill.

There were clearly compromises made in reaching agreement on the conference report. We can point to things in the conference report that are there because of Republican and Democratic sponsors. In the end, it is a

product where the benefits to students outweigh the reservations that some of us may have.

Over 55 percent of the savings are dedicated to increasing the Pell grant award. In the next 5 years, low-income undergraduate students will see the maximum Pell grant award increase by more than $1,000. We will see who all takes credit for that, but that is what the bill does, and it will take people from both parties to get it passed. We increase the income protection allowance so students are not penalized for working and saving for college. The unique role that our not-for-profit lenders have in providing information and services to students has been recognized.

But at the end of the day, we must still reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Reconciliation is such a small part, and we cannot leave out the other part or we will close the door on our students. We have to reauthorize the Higher Education Act that provides the FAFSA simplification, year-round Pell, financial and economic literacy, better college cost information, and improvements in outreach and student support service programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO, in which all of us have an interest.

We have passed eight extensions of the Higher Education Act, starting in 2004. The current extension expires on October 31. How much longer do we have to wait? My goal is to not have a ninth extension on the Higher Education Act. My goal is to debate and pass a higher education reauthorization conference report. I look forward to working with Senator Kennedy and the House to get this accomplished, or else no matter how you slice it, the biggest piece of higher education is left undone.

I will have more comments to make on the accounting on these different things as we get into further debate after the vote. We did agree to a 10:15 vote, and I want to stick to that. I have a lot of people I would like to thank. I will also save that for later. I believe my time has expired.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his great explanation of what is in the bill we just passed. As the debate on this conference report comes to a close, it is necessary to thank those who worked long and hard to get us to this point. It has been a lot of people. I appreciate the extensive list that Senator Kennedy had.

Chairman Kennedy has done a marvelous job of pulling everybody together, covering very diverse topics, some of them very controversial, and working through them. What I always like to point out to people is that is not always a compromise. Sometimes it is a third way. What we are trying to do is get to a goal. This bill goes a long way toward getting to that goal. I thank him for his commitment to not only moving forward with this bill but to joining me in pressing for the comprehensive higher education reform bill.

I would also like to thank everyone on my staff who has worked to get us to this point. In particular, I would like to thank Katherine McGuire, who directs the whole operation, all of the different bills we are working on. There are actually about 55 in the process, covering health, education, labor, and pensions.

I would like to thank Beth Buehlmann, who has been the education guru on our side, who has led the team that I have that has helped put together these different packages in the education area. I have to say, our committee covers everything from birth to death because we start with preschool and then we have elementary and secondary education, then we have higher education, then we have continuing education. In this day and age, it is important for people not just to graduate from college, it is important for them to continue to learn. Of course, there is a direct relationship between how long you continue to learn and how long you live. But it is going to be even more important as the baby boomers are retiring that we encourage a lot of them to continue in the workforce--perhaps in different jobs than they have ever done before. So we have a lot of things we need to get done yet that we have been working on.

Head Start is one of those preschool programs we have. We actually handle 69 preschool programs. We need to do some condensing on that so we eliminate some duplication, some excess, and some spending. But Head Start has already passed the Senate, it has already passed the House. We are working very carefully to get that finished up now with a conference report, and I think we are making good progress on that.

On No Child Left Behind, the House has informed us they now have their draft proposal ready to discuss. We have been working on that in a very bipartisan way for a long period of time now, going back into the last session of Congress and now into this one. Again, I congratulate Senator Kennedy for the way he has held coffees to bring in experts who can clear up, in a more casual atmosphere, some of the difficulties, give us a better understanding and share with us some of their ideas on how that can be achieved. It has been extremely helpful. We have had meetings with Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon from the House along with the President and First Lady and the Secretary of Education on numerous occasions. Those have been very bipartisan.

I would be very remiss if I failed to mention the commission that has been working on No Child Left Behind that provided us with a number of proposals, suggestions, advice on what needs to be done to make that even more effective. Those have been, again, worked on in a very bipartisan way to see which fit with all the other ideas we have. I think we will come up with a plan for that which will improve the system. It will eliminate some of the feeling that it is just about evaluating teachers and will give them more tools to know what their students are lacking so we do not leave whole groups of children, or individual children, without an education. That is the whole purpose of the program.

We are also trying to work in the high school area, where we can eliminate dropouts and eliminate some of that remedial work which is needed when they get to college. That remedial education costs billions of dollars to parents and to taxpayers.

Another important piece to this puzzle that we need to do is continuing education. We have passed unanimously through the Senate, twice over the last 3\1/2\ years, the Workforce Investment Act. This is an act which would train 900,000 people for higher skilled jobs or different jobs than they have held before, so they can retire and do something different and still be a contributing part of the workforce and continue to have revenue coming in. But we have never been able to conference that bill. I think that is a crime. We need to get it through once again, through the Senate, and get it conferenced.

I know some of the concerns were what might happen in conference. Now it is our side that should have the concerns about what could happen in conference because, as we have seen in conference, actually the minority can be left out of the process. I hope that would not be the case. But there is a lot of devilment that could be done, and that is why we didn't get to conference the Workforce Investment Act. I kept assuring that would not happen in conference, but now the other side should know for sure that anything they were worried about the Republicans doing in conference will not happen. I will try to convince the Republicans that the Democrats will show equal courtesy and we will not have to worry about what they might do in that bill and we will wind up with something that will actually train people to higher skilled jobs so we don't have to outsource those jobs to other countries. That is what is happening now. We don't have this training process to the level of flexibility where it really serves the people in the new occupations that are coming up.

The kids in school now will undoubtedly have more than a dozen different careers. Not different employers; that is real easy--you just quit one, move to an another, work essentially the same kind of job. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about moving to a new career. Why is that essential? Because a lot of the jobs that are available today will not be available in the future. Out of those 14 different occupations that a person will probably have, 9 of them haven't even been invented yet. That is how the world is changing. We have to be sure that the whole education process, from preschool to death, conforms to the new economy so people in the United States, citizens of the United States are the ones getting the good jobs; that we are not sending them, with the new technology, to other parts of the world. We can do it. We are a very innovative country.

This bill we have done today will go a long way to helping in higher education, but what we focused mostly on was just the financing. There are a lot of pieces of higher education which go beyond that and which the chairman and I have been emphasizing to the House that they need to get done, and we are hoping to have some very firm dates on when they will get that done. This could get into a Presidential election situation if it goes much longer. That probably would not be productive for higher education or our kids, so we need to get it done right away.

I have mentioned numerous times the things that have been left out of the reconciliation bill. I will not go back through all of those again, although I have some great charts, but I would emphasize again that needs to be done.

I will mention one area again because this goes back to a story from my earlier days. My first child was applying for college. I had to face this formidable form as an accountant. As an accountant, I have trouble understanding not only parts of the form but parts of the worksheet. This is a typical Government thing. They give you a worksheet to be able to fill in a blank of the final form, and the worksheet is almost as difficult as the form. As an accountant, it is a little tough sometimes to know what is even supposed to go into the blanks, but that is OK because the Government always provides extensive instructions on how you can interpret the blanks you are supposed to fill in. Hopefully on the new one-page form we have they will not have to refer to extensive explanations.

I think it is pretty clear what we have on the new ones. It is supplemented. Instead of taking pieces off of your income tax form to report on, you already have the form done, so the form can be submitted with it, and that has greater explanation than trying to do all of the math Worksheet B calls for. So we have simplified that greatly. But that is besides the fact that now it is very formidable, and that keeps a lot of people from ever applying for financial aid.

I had the opportunity to fill out one of these when my first child was getting ready to go to college and was picking a fairly expensive college, and I thought maybe we can qualify for help, and the financial officer said: Yes, I think you probably can; you just have to fill out this little form.

We filled it out. We were in the shoe business. We had a single shoe store. It was a family shoe store. My wife and I both worked there, and the kids worked there some of the time, and we had other people who worked for us,

too. We were going through all the crises that small businesses today have to deal with, like, how do you afford the insurance for your people? It is not fair to buy insurance for yourself unless you buy insurance for the people who work for you. We were going through a number of those crises. Anybody in small business knows there are those times when you wake up in the middle of the night with an ``O my word, how am I going to pay the bills today?''

Aside from that, I filled out the form and got the results back and they said: You really don't qualify. There are two essential reasons. One is, if you sold off a fourth of your inventory each year, you wouldn't need the help. If you sell off a fourth of your inventory and your child makes it through school in 4 years--which is not standard, but I do want to say all three of my kids did graduate in 4 years--but if you sell off one-fourth of your inventory each year, you can afford to send your child to college without any financial help.

I had to point out to them that if I sold off one-fourth of my inventory each 4 years, I would be out of business by the time my child graduated.

That is not quite fair, and hopefully we have made some corrections so that we won't be putting people out of business in order to get their kids through college, but we will be expecting them to make contributions to the expense of their education.

The other surprise was we had made our kids work. We made them save a substantial piece of what they earned when they worked so they could pay part of their way to college. This same financial officer said to me: You know, she would have been better off if she had bought a car because that wouldn't count against her.

What kind of incentive is that for the kids in this country? They really will appreciate their education more if they participate in their education. So I think if we can get that reauthorization part through, we will protect and incentivize kids to actually work toward their college education, so it will mean more to them as they go through, and that will probably cut down a little bit on how long it takes them to get through school because part of that money is theirs. I would like to see every kid be able to get an education and have some money left over when they get their education, not a whole bunch of loans. We will be able to help with that by passing this reconciliation conference report.

I do have some concerns, as everybody does when they pass a bill. I am the only accountant in the Senate, so when we look at some of this stuff and the way we score things, I do have some difficulties with it. We need to be aware of them because these are going to come back to bite us later.

One is the chart the Senator from New Hampshire used earlier, which shows how scoring works around here, and that is that you can provide benefits, and then if you can end the scoring at a particular point, you can drop off to a zero and show that you fully funded it.

It is not going to work that way in reality. I do not know who is going to be in the majority when we get to 2012. Nobody does. But whoever is in the majority at 2012 has to figure out how to fill the gap of the dip in the chart, as well as take care of the inflation that has happened in the meantime, and, hopefully, greater Pell grants as a whole, in reality, at that point in time.

Why am I concerned about this? Well, we have done some things with interest rates over a period of time that have had some of these same effects on students. We always try to figure out how we can get the lowest interest rate for kids who are going to college. And that is important. And a number of Senators, including the Presiding Officer, have pointed out the importance of that.

Well, we got involved in interest rates actually when President Carter was in office, and interest rates rose to 18 percent and were going higher, and did go higher. We had no idea how much higher. We had no idea whether they would ever come down again.

So Congress got involved with student loans and said: 6.8 percent is the highest that anybody is going to pay while they go to college, and we did kind of put some ends on that. In the meantime, of course, interest rates came back down. We went to variable rates, which allowed the Government to fluctuate more on interest rates. But each time, it becomes a problem for whoever is in the majority because you can pin the difficulty on them and say: `You have got to solve it. And no matter what solution you come up with, we are not going to like it, and we are going to make it into a campaign issue.'

Well, I hope we do not do that all of the time. But it is important for people to realize that we are cutting the interest rates in this reconciliation bill we just did, and we are going to get them down to 3.4 percent. But that is over a period of time. So students who are in college and just heard the discussion should not expect to go get a loan--or as soon as the President signs the bill--at 3.4 percent. That gets phased in. It will get down to 3.4 percent. But then it ends, and we run into the same situation that I pointed out a minute ago; that one party or the other is going to be in the majority at that time, and they are going to have to solve that problem of how we keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent or lower, or match up to higher rates, because they all have a cost.

Now, how does that cost get handled? Well, it does not make a whole lot of difference to the banks because we subsidize them up to a level, and we change that from time to time too. The subsidy is what we have been talking about in this reconciliation bill. You can offer this lower rate to the students, and then we will provide a subsidy so that you make a reasonable rate of return. Now, we always have a little trouble deciding what that reasonable rate of return is, and that is what we are talking about.

Two years ago, we cut that subsidy, and we cut it pretty severely and made billions in savings off of cutting that corporate subsidy.

Now, at that time what we did is put half of the savings in the subsidy, which actually comes from the taxpayers,--You have got to understand that it is from the taxpayers that we are doing this--but we took half of that and we put it to deficit reduction, which is kind of a return to the taxpayers.

We took the other half and did a number of things for students. We decreased loan origination fees to 0 percent. We put $8 billion into specialized kinds of Pell grants, which were the SMART and American Competitiveness Grants for science, technology, engineering, math, and some critical foreign languages. That is a real need for this country.

If we do not address that need, we are going to have some difficult economic times in this country. So we said we have to get more young people involved in science, technology, engineering, and math. And we took care of the college portion of that, encouraging them with a smaller amount their freshman year, and then a little bit bigger in sophomore year, and a lot bigger in their junior and senior years if they would do science, technology, engineering, and math. That came to $8 billion.

We also increased loan limits for freshmen and sophomores. We increased asset protection, and we increased auto zero to $20,000. That is the income level up to which you automatically get a full Pell grant. So we did a number things with the money for students. At that point in time we were criticized for a lot of things we did not do for students that could have been done, just as there will be criticism with this bill for things that could or could not be done.

I do think we arrived at a good solution, one that will work, one that I am hopeful and pretty sure the President is going to sign, that will make a difference for young people. But I do want to emphasize that we do need to finish that reauthorization package. Without that, a lot of this does not work. It sounds good, but it does not work. So let's get the whole job done.

Since 2004, we have extended the Higher Education Act eight different times. We have said: `What we have now is good enough, so we cannot reach any other kind of a decision. So let's just extend it again.' I do not want to have a ninth extension. I want to get the job done.

There are some great things. We have hundreds of pages. The bill is that thick, for reauthorization, that does good things for students. This is the part we are talking about we have not done yet. This has stuff in it that needs to be done, and we can do it.

The agreement in the Senate on this was 95 to 0. You don't get more bipartisan than 95 to 0. I am pretty sure if the other five people would have been here, it would been 100 to 0. That is agreement. That is because this desperately needs to be done. I am glad the House is going to take a look at it. In fact, the chairman told me that they would be using this bill as a blueprint.

I assured him if he used that as a blueprint and took the wording that goes with it, it can be done reasonably. Around here we usually do not do that sort of thing, though, because each of us has to get a fingerprint on everything, and that slows down the process sometimes. But I suspect it will be fairly close to what we have done here. It needs to be done as soon as possible.

Now, I began my thank-yous earlier. I want to finish my thank-yous and my speech. Besides Katherine McGuire and Beth Buehlmann on my staff, I wanted to thank Ann Clough, Adam Briddell, Amy Shank, Ilyse Schuman, Greg Dean, and Kelly Hastings.

I would be very remiss if I did not thank the members of Senator Kennedy's staff for their hard work and cooperation: Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, JD LaRock, Missy Rohrbach, and Erin Renner.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the members of the HELP Committee and their staffs for their hard work throughout this process. This has been one of the most contentious committees in years past. When we are working on education and health, this is one of the most cooperative committees in the Senate.

We do intend to make progress in all four of the areas that we work in. We got the pensions area pretty well wrapped up last year. There has been a little technical correction portion that we have to get done yet.

There are always different things in the pension area. But we made some significant changes in the labor area last year, too, that have come to light in recent weeks with the first change, the biggest change in mine safety in 28 years. We will be reviewing the tragedy that happened in Utah to see how that fits in with what we did or did not get accomplished and will look at future changes.

But it took us 28 years to make the first major change. It will not hurt if it gets to 24 or 28 months before we get the reports in that help us to analyze any other changes that we need to make.

Once again, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his tremendous effort, his tremendous knowledge, his capabilities to explain and come through with the ideas, sometimes compromises, but quite often a third way of doing things. It makes a huge difference in the result.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Ann Clough, a detailee in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the conference report for H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the conference report that we will be voting on tomorrow morning. I will also have more comments tomorrow morning. I wished to give a little bit of an explanation of where we are. There is a limited time of debate in the morning prior to the vote. I am sure Senator Kennedy and I will give a little fuller explanation of the vote and the reconciliation package, even following that discussion, so anyone who is interested can have as much knowledge about what is in the conference report as they could get, except by reading it. So most of the comments will be tomorrow morning, but I wanted to make a few preliminary comments tonight since the time is limited before the vote in the morning.

As I mentioned, I do rise to speak in support of the conference report.

Two years ago, Republicans took the lead in reducing subsidies to lenders and providing greater benefits to students through more grant assistance and reduced loan costs. In this conference report, we produce an additional $22 billion in savings by further reducing subsidies to lenders and applying those savings to increased grants for low-income students, for expanded loan forgiveness, and for reduced interest rates on undergraduate subsidized loans.

We all agreed that if there is an excess subsidy in the student loans programs, it should be eliminated. The key questions are how much excess there is and how to eliminate it. There are not any clear-cut answers to those questions. One approach included in this conference report is the reduction of the special allowance payments, the SAP, to lenders.

I am pleased we retained provisions that recognize the unique role that our not-for-profit lenders have in providing information and services to students and their families. Not-for-profit lenders focus on communities and serve students locally. For this reason, we maintained the 15 basis points differential cut in special allowance payments between for-profit and not-for-profit lenders. The cut in the SAP to for-profit lenders is 55 basis points and for not-for-profit lenders is 40 basis points.

We took a first step in this conference report toward refining the way these levels are determined, by including an auction pilot that lets the marketplace determine the appropriate SAP level for the Parent PLUS Program, which is a small part that allows us to have a little preview of how an auction process would work, and also help to work out any bugs if it works out to be a good demonstration project.

This conference report provides additional need-based grant aid which is a critical component of increasing access to and affordability of college. Over 55 percent of the savings are dedicated to increasing the Pell grant award. In the next 5 years, low-income undergraduate students will see the maximum Pell grant award increase by more than $1,000. Additionally, we increase the income protection allowance so students are not penalized for working and for saving for college. It has been a problem in the past. If you work and save for college, you would have been better off to have bought a car because it would count against you. We raise the income threshold for automatic eligibility for a maximum Pell grant.

I am also pleased we were able to retain the guarantee rate on student loans at 97 percent for all lenders through fiscal year 2012. In this way, we avoid disruption in the student loan market and ensure that students have access to Federal student loans.

However, I wonder if we are going too far in cutting the support for the largest Federal financial aid program, the Federal Family Education Loan Program--that is the private loan program, the FFELP program. The challenge we face is we will not know until it is too late if the cuts we have made have undermined the stability of the program and created hardship for the students it serves.

Despite the emphasis on increased grant aid, the claim of increased savings for borrowers has a hollow ring. Reducing student loan interest rates is a good sound bite. It does nothing to help students pay tuition bills. Further, in reality, cutting the interest rate in half, to 3.4 percent, will help only a small group of borrowers for the loans they take out for 1 year of their education, 4 years from now. Then the benefit disappears.

A quick calculation of the real benefit borrowers will receive shows that for a cost of $6 billion to taxpayers, individual borrowers will see savings of only $6 a month. I would much rather see the $6 billion go to help low-income students through a Pell grant increase than to a hollow sound bite, and that is the approach the Senate took, to increase the Pell grant rather than the reduction in the distant future of a small percentage in the interest rate.

Finally, as an accountant and a member of the Budget Committee, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we are debating a conference report on reconciliation which is a process designed to reduce the Federal deficit, not to create new mandatory programs and increase entitlement spending. I am disappointed to say the net savings for deficit reduction in this conference report is only $750 million. I would admit that is the requirement we were given by the budget to produce--$750 million. The last time we did a budget reconciliation we put half the money that was saved by canceling some of the subsidies to the corporations to budget deficit reduction.

I do wish to remind my colleagues that a few weeks ago we considered reconciliation and higher education reauthorization together. This is a key point. The Senate did it consecutively.

On a Thursday, we did the reconciliation bill. The next voting day we had was a Monday, and on Monday we passed the higher education reauthorization.

This is a bill that is long overdue. We have done short extensions eight times, and we recognize that we passed them together in the Senate with strong bipartisan support. In fact, the reauthorization bill vote was 95 to 0. So we not only achieved savings, but we ensured the quality and effectiveness of our Federal Student Aid Programs. Therefore, support for this conference report is limited by the fact that we are not also considering the larger higher education reauthorization package, although I am expecting that we will get some very solid agreement from the House folks to begin consideration of that, I hope yet this month, so it can be completed early and we can have both parts of the package.

Tomorrow I will go into a little bit more on what is in that other package that completes what we are doing in reconciliation. In the reconciliation we are eliminating some of the subsidies, and then we are reallocating that money. That money will go to help students. But the bulk of the help actually comes in the reauthorization package. It is ever so essential that we do that.

I think the Senate would have been agreeable to put the two bills together and get them both finished at the same time, but it is not possible because the House has not finished action on the Higher Ed reauthorization.

Tomorrow I will go into some more detail on what it is that is missing from the package by just doing the reconciliation part of the package. I will be encouraging people to vote for the reconciliation package and then the reauthorization package when we are able to get that together.

I will be encouraging the House, in every way possible, to make sure they get that reauthorization part of the package done, and I have some relative assurance that they are going to do it soon. I would like some more solid assurance they are going to do it soon.

With that, I will conclude my remarks for tonight and look forward to the bipartisan discussion we will have tomorrow. I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for the great work he and his staff did on this package. It is not often in this body that people listen and then try and find the solution. I would say they and my staff have worked together well and got us here. You never get a perfect package around here. This is one that will help a lot of people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and before I object, I need to understand the rationale of the majority leader to propound the request at this time. I sent a letter last week. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this letter is asking for a conference to be appointed. But it is my understanding the House never intended to appoint one this week. Had I known that, I would not have delivered the letter. We were working in a very bicameral, bipartisan manner on getting this done.

At that time, the key players for this legislation--Representatives, Senators, Republicans, and Democrats--were engaged in a very productive bicameral, and bipartisan preconference negotiation. We had all rolled up our sleeves and decided that we were going to complete the legislation before the August recess.

We had a good core agreement, focused on good policy. That is not to say that there weren't a few sticking points. There always are a few of those, but we were making significant progress and coming to a better understanding of each other's legislation. Thus, the appointment of conferees would have been a simple step in the process.

However, a week later, we are not in the same place. As the majority leader knows, this body can seemingly operate in Senate dog years. One week can be a lifetime. In that short week, there were a series of unfortunate events. These events made it impossible for us to meet the goal of completing this key legislation before August recess. I don't want these unfortunate events to derail this process.

The first unfortunate event was a discussion on the House floor last Friday afternoon between Representative Cantor and Representative Wasserman-Schultz. In that discussion, the House leadership indicated that they did not intend to have the FDA bill on the House suspension calendar this week. Given that I am not one to watch the House floor, I did not realize that this decision had been made by House leadership last Friday. On Monday, that information was conveyed to my staff by the staff of key Democrats engaged in discussion. The House Democrats did not see how this FDA bill was to get done before recess.

Had I known that this was what the House Democrats wanted a few days before, I would not have hand-delivered that letter to the majority leader and the minority leader.

Partially, I believe the decision by House Democrats was related to other items, other priorities facing the House. Like us, the House has been discussing the SCHIP legislation this week. Unlike the Senate, the House committees overlap such that the same committee that works on FDA issues also works on SCHIP issues. While we pride our staff in being able to do the impossible, forcing both FDA and SCHIP at the same time would be well past impossible. Thus, the House Democrats made a choice--SCHIP over FDA.

Partially, I also believe that the House leadership felt as if they could get a ``better deal'' if they were to wait until September and build up additional pressure related to reduction in force directly related to the reauthorization of the core of the FDA drug safety bill. I hope to disabuse them of that reality.

If we are to answer to the American people, to give FDA the necessary new authorities, we must do this in a bipartisan manner. We should not politicize this. We should not hold out for ``better deals'' but work together to forge a strong agreement that every American can support.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues not to politicize this issue. Too much is at stake for us to begin the blame game. Instead of blaming each other for potential failure, we should be working to ensure our success. We should be developing a process agreement for how we are to complete this key legislation. We should begin defining the scope of the conference to ensure that extraneous proposals do not weigh down our ability to quickly respond when we return in September.

As part of that first step, I would like everyone to know what I believe is the appropriate scope of the conference. First, we must include the reauthorizations of user fee programs at the FDA to ensure that nearly 2,000 employees at that agency are not laid off. These staff not only ensure that drugs and devices are appropriately and efficiently reviewed before they are allowed to go to market, but they also are in charge of key postmarket safety monitoring of those products. We must reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and the Medical Devices User Fee Modernization Act.

Beyond these items, during our Senate debate on FDA, we discussed key provisions that provided FDA with new authorities to assist the agency in quickly and effectively responding to potential safety issues. These new authorities include requiring labeling changes, requiring postmarket studies to more fully examine potential risks, and to have access to clinical trials information for patients and providers. In addition, we discussed how to address potential conflicts of interest of advisory committee members to ensure greater transparency and preserve scientific integrity. I commend Senator Mikulski and Senator Grassley for their work in this area.

In addition, we must include three key provisions that focus on children. The first two--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act--ensure that drugs used in children are tested on children. The third proposal would increase our ability to have devices geared toward children.

Beyond those, there were a series of other provisions which were key to our bipartisan agreement. There is the Reagan-Udall Foundation provisions to ensure that FDA has additional tools to advance the science behind its regulations. The Senate also debated and then accepted a variety of important provisions related to citizens petitions, direct-to-consumer advertising, counterfeit drugs, and antibiotics and enantiomers.

Senator Stabenow, Senator Brown, Senator Lott, Senator Thune, Senator Hatch and Senator Coburn developed a proposal on citizens petitions that will end the abuse of the system while preserving FDA's ability to review those petitions that have public health merit. Senator Roberts and Senator Harkin worked together successfully to solve the difficult issue of how to see that direct to consumer advertisements provide effective safety information to patients while meeting the stringent test of constitutionality. Senator Dorgan and Senator Snowe contributed a proposal on counterfeit drugs that will be included here as well. Senator Hatch, Senator Brown, and Senator Burr developed key public health provisions to ensure access to new antibiotics and drug enantiomers.

Senator Brown and Senator Brownback offered an important incentive to encourage the development of drugs for tropical diseases. All of these items are important components to this legislation and speak to the larger bipartisan nature of our agreement. Let me say that again. We worked deliberately to ensure that our bill was bipartisan.

Finally, there were a variety of provisions included within the Senate bill to address key food safety provisions. Senator Sessions, Senator Stevens, and Senator Durbin and I worked on

amendments that addressed issues with food and pet food safety.

While I have discussed several key provisions that have been within the scope of our discussions, we must also discuss what should not be within the scope of this legislation. While a sense of the Senate indicated our desire to make generic biologics--or what I like to call biosimilars--available to American consumers to reduce the costs of some medications while preserving quality, the House has so far made it clear that such legislation would not be welcome on this legislation. They prefer to move through regular order. I understand that desire. I prefer regular order, too.

During our discussion on the Senate floor, there was one provision that I believe put the bill in jeopardy--an importation amendment. The House opted not to include this provision so that they could deal with it at a later date. This bill is not the time for this debate, given that we are focusing on key bipartisan proposals.

So, I turn to the majority leader, and I ask him to refrain from politicizing this issue. I ask him to work with me to define the scope of the conference, to develop a plan for getting this legislation done.

Until the House leadership is in agreement with our plan, we should not force the issue today by appointing conferees too early. If we do this too early, we set ourselves up for the blame game, not for getting this key legislation done. This place should not be about ``gotcha'' politics when lives are at stake.

Mr. President, I don't know what the logjam is at the moment. I understand there is some concern on the biologics. There isn't any reason this cannot be completed, but I am afraid the motion, if we are doing this, would appear to put the blame on the House, or on the Republicans--I am not sure which--and I don't think we can do that at this point in time. Maybe later in the day.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or what folks on Capitol Hill are calling S-CHIP.

SCHIP was created by a Republican Congress in 1997 to help low income kids get health insurance. The goal of the program is to help kids that don't qualify for Medicaid, but also can't afford to get health insurance on their own, receive the care they need. This program expires on September 30, 2007, and I am here today to speak about how important it is to reauthorize this critical program in a way that protects private health insurance and keeps kids healthy.

I would like to speak for a few minutes about the how the program works today and how the proposals the Senate is discussing will change what currently happens.

Currently States have three options: they can enroll kids in Medicaid, create a new separate program, or devise a combination of both approaches. SCHIP is financed jointly by the Federal Government and the States, and States receive a higher percentage of Federal money for their SCHIP beneficiaries than they do for their Medicaid beneficiaries. This was originally designed to encourage States to create SCHIP programs. States have 3 years to spend their SCHIP allotments. Funds that aren't spent within 3 years are usually redistributed to States that have spent their allotment and need additional money.

When the Republican-led Congress enacted SCHIP in 1997, the program authorized $40 billion for 10 years. I will come back to this point in a bit, but the underlying bill before us today authorizes $60 billion over 5 years--the baseline spending is $25 billion over 5 years and this bill authorizes an additional $35 billion over 5 years. The budget resolution contained a deficit neutral reserve fund to spend $50 billion over 5 years in addition to the $25 billion in the baseline, so a total in the budget resolution is $75 billion over 5 years. This is a lot of money and Congress needs to ensure the money is being used to pay for health insurance for kids that don't currently have health insurance.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Senator Baucus' bill will reduce private coverage--that is kids will move from private health insurance to taxpayer-funded public health insurance. This is a highly inefficient policy--especially given how bureaucratic some State programs are structured. This is not an efficient use of the taxpayer's money.

Part of the reason why the crowd out effect is so great under the Finance bill is because the bill allows States to expand coverage to kids up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level--which by the way translates to an annual income of $82,000 for a family of four. The higher the income expansion, the greater the crowd out effect. This is simple economics.

Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention what a great job my home state of Wyoming is doing in administering SCHIP. Wyoming first implemented its SCHIP program, Kid Care

CHIP, in 1999 and in 2003, Wyoming formed a public-private partnership with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming and Delta Dental of Wyoming to provide the health, vision, and dental benefits to nearly 6,000 kids in Wyoming. These partnerships have made Kid Care CHIP a very successful program in Wyoming. All children enrolled in the program receive a wide range of benefits including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, lab and x-ray services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse services, durable medical equipment, physical therapy, and dental and vision services. Families share in the cost of their children's health care by paying copayments for a portion of the care provided. These copays are capped at $200 a year per family.

Wyoming is also engaged in an outreach campaign targeted at finding and enrolling the additional 6,000 kids that are eligible for Kid Care CHIP but aren't enrolled.

As Congress works to finalize a bill to reauthorize this program, it is essential that we focus on the kids first. Some states SCHIP programs cover parents of kids that are on SCHIP and some States even cover childless adults. Adults without health insurance are a problem in this country, but not a problem this program was originally intended to address. I think there are responsible, market-based things Congress can do to help more American adults get health insurance, but this bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, should focus on the C for Children.

Not only does this bill need to focus on kids, we need to focus on low income kids. In July 2005, Wyoming's Kid Care CHIP began covering kids up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level--those with family incomes below $42,000. The median family income in the United States is about $46,000, so the Wyoming benefit is very generous. Some of my colleagues are advocating for expanding SCHIP to cover kids and adults at 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. That means families making as much as $82,000 a year would have their kid's health insurance paid for by the government. Again, this is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. Why should the government provide health care for kids that come from families making $82,000 a year? I'll tell you why my colleagues are advocating for it--they see this as the first step toward government-run health care. They want the U.S. to be more like Canada and Great Britain. They want to take the private sector out of health care. They want to put the government in the exam room and tell you what doctors you can see and when you can see them and what drugs they can prescribe for you. I don't believe in this. Not only do I not believe in this, I think this goes against all the principles upon which this country was founded.

Now I do agree that our health care system is breaking down, and in fact I don't think we have a health care system, I think we have a sick care system. That is why, earlier this month, I introduced ``Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America,'' a bold and comprehensive solution that addresses our health care crisis by building on market based ideas to expand access to health insurance for all Americans. I would like to take just a little bit of time to discuss each of Ten Steps.

The first of the Ten Steps is eliminating unfair tax treatment of health insurance, expanding choices and coverage and giving 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 will save the Federal Government $3.6 trillion over the next ten years. 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 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 Medicaid and switch to private insurance. Everyone should be treated equally.

The second step of Ten Steps would increase affordable options for working families to purchase health insurance through a standard tax deduction. The national, above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance will equal $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for an individual.

The third step of Ten Steps is what makes this a hybrid approach--I couple the standard deduction with a refundable, advanceable, assignable tax-based subsidy. The tax subsidy is equal to $5,000 for a family, $2,500 for an individual. The full subsidy amount is available to individuals at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty level, FPL, which is $20,650 for a family of four. The subsidy is phased out as an individual's salary increases, with individuals at 200 percent receiving half of the subsidy and individuals at 301 percent receiving the standard deduction instead of the subsidy.

The fourth key step for health care reform is to provide market-based pooling to reduce growing health care costs and increase access for small businesses, unions, other kinds of organizations, and their workers, members, and families. Those of you who know me well recognize how central this would be to any health care reform proposal of mine.

The fifth step blends the individual and group market to extend important HIPAA portability protections to the individual market so that insurance security can better move with you from job to job.

The sixth step emphasizes preventive benefits and helps individuals with chronic diseases better manage their health. America should have health care, not sick care. Prevention. Prevention. Prevention. This step is modeled after a very successful program in Wyoming. In 2005, Wyoming EqualityCare, our Medicaid Program, began providing one-on-one case management for Medicaid participants with a chronic illness, such as diabetes, asthma, depression, and heart disease, to encourage better self-management of these conditions. The program provides educational information on self-management as well as a nurse health coach that follows up with each patient to ensure they have what they need to take care of themselves.

The seventh step gives individuals the choice to convert the value of their Medicaid and SCHIP program benefits into private health insurance, putting them in control of their health care, not the Federal Government. This is very pertinent to the underlying bill we are discussing today. The rationale for this step is simple. If the market can provide better coverage at a lower price, then why not allow Americans to access that care? This gives low-income individuals more options about where they receive their care and what care is available to them. It is time for people to start making decisions about their care--let's get the government out of the doctor's office.

The eighth step in Ten Steps is a bipartisan proposal which the HELP Committee approved last month--the Wired for Health Care Quality Act. This bill will encourage the adoption of cutting-edge-information technologies in health care to improve patient care, reduce medical errors and cut health care costs. Some of the most serious challenges facing healthcare today--medical errors, inconsistent quality, and rising costs--can be addressed through the effective application of available health information technology linking all elements of the health care system.

The ninth step of Ten Steps helps future providers and nurses pay for their education while encouraging them to serve in areas with great need. The ninth step also ensures appropriate development of rural health systems and access to care for residents of rural areas and gives seniors more options to receive care in their homes and communities.

The final step decreases the sky-rocketing costs of health care by restoring reliability in our medical justice system through State-based solutions.

I realize that I have talked for quite a bit about Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America and that, the underlying legislation is the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I believe it is important to think bigger than just one program and think about the health care system as a whole. I have spoken a few times on the Senate floor about what I call the 80/20 rule. I always believe that we can agree on 80 percent of the issues and on 80 percent of each issue, and that if we focus on that 80 percent we can do great things for the

American people. I believe that if we work together on these proposals we can find that 80 percent. I would like to work with my colleagues on that 80 percent. I want action--real action to provide real coverage for Americans. I support reauthorizing this program in a way that protects private health insurance and keeps kids healthy. I also support looking beyond this single program at reforming the entire health care system.