Floor Statements

I do agree with the chairman and would be happy to join him, Senator Dodd, and Senator Murray in further clarifying these points as the conference committee considers S. 556 and begins its work on the reauthorization of the Head Start Act.

Mr. President, I listened to the conversation that has gone on this morning. I have to say I am a little bit disappointed in some of the negative comments about our country. I always thought you had to be an ultimate optimist to serve in this body. Things go slowly, which is probably fortunate, but we just can't keep trying to make ourselves look better by running down our country. I often remind people that I am not aware of anybody trying to get out of our country, but from the past 2 weeks' discussion, I know there are a lot of people trying to get in.

I will cite an article from the Wall Street Journal of Wednesday, May 23, 2007, that says, ``The Poor Get Richer.'' It reads:

It's been a rough week for John Edwards, and now comes more

bad news for his ``two Americas'' campaign theme. A new study

by the Congressional Budget Office says the poor have been

getting less poor. On average, CBO found that low-wage

households with children had incomes after inflation that

were more than one-third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Another article I refer to is from Denver's Rocky Mountain News for April 9, 2007, ``Not bad for a much-maligned economy.'' We keep talking about how bad the economy is. Well, it isn't bad.

Just when your mind may have been grappling with the

disturbing news that Circuit City stores had fired 3,400 of

their highest-paid hourly salespeople--not to trim the

workforce, as you might expect, but to replace those let go

with lower-paid workers--along comes the Labor Department

with equally startling news, but of a positive bent.

In March, the U.S. economy added 180,000 jobs; the

unemployment rate declined again, to 4.4 percent; and average

hourly and weekly earnings advanced, with weekly income up

4.4 percent . . .

The article goes on to read:

But after six years of fairly steady economic growth

despite a costly war, Katrina, a housing slump and other body

blows, fair-minded people should at least entertain the

possibility that current policies must be getting something

right.

It ends by saying:

After all, what exactly is it about the March economic

figures that [you] don't like?

I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what I really came to address is an issue of utmost importance to the American people. When I visit my home State and read the mail I receive from constituents, I am consistently reminded of the fact that we are seeing record-high energy prices. High energy prices affect almost every American. They affect the parent who drives his or her kids to school. They affect the college student who wants to make it home for the weekend. They affect Members of the Senate as we travel to and from our States. But we have to be careful with what we do. A lot of the time, something that we think is going to be a positive move turns out to be a negative.

I refer to a Wall Street Journal article of May 16, 2007. It is titled ``Green But Unclean.'' It reads:

Remember those water-saving toilets that Congress mandated

a few years back? Yes, the ones that frequently clog and

don't flush, causing many Americans to resort to buying high-

performance, black-marketed potties in Canada and sneaking

them into their homes like smugglers. Well, get set for

Washington's latest brainstorm.

I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record.

Price increases are for a number of reasons, but the simplest explanation is that we lack the supply to meet the demand for energy. At the same time, prices decrease when we see strong supplies that are capable of meeting the demand that exists.

We have to be careful that we reduce the demand--and that is what part of this bill does--but we also have to figure out a way to increase the supply. I am a little disappointed in what the bill does with that.

On June 12, 2007, there was an article in the Casper Star-Tribune. The title is ``Official warns of energy crisis; Growth in demand for electricity in West exceeds generation capacity.'' Of course, for years we have been hearing about rolling brownouts in California and even blackouts in part of the country.

It says:

Construction of new electrical generation in the West is

projected to grow by 6 percent, while demand for electricity

is projected to increase by 19 percent over the next 10

years, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, speaking on her own behalf, said the situation is nothing short of a crisis.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

As prices continue to escalate, some would say we are in an energy crisis. We are at a point where we continue to see the global demand for energy increasing as countries such as China and India develop. At the same time, the demand increases, the Democratic Congress is not taking the steps to increase our domestic supply. Some of the policies we are seeing will have a detrimental effect on that supply.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a number of important incentives for the domestic exploration of many new natural resource supplies. It aided in the production of affordable domestic energy. We are now seeing a number of proposals from the other side to repeal these important provisions.

In the 109th Congress, we attempted to pass important legislation to streamline the bureaucratic process that made it impossible to build an entirely new refinery, and that is what has been happening for the last 30 years. That legislation was repeatedly blocked at the expense of the American people, who continue to suffer as refiners struggle to keep pace through expansion. Supply and demand--you can buy the oil, but unless the oil becomes gasoline, you cannot use it, and unless it is in enough of a quantity of gasoline and enough of a supply, the price will go up. It will provide complications.

Since November, gasoline prices have increased almost 50 percent. The price of gas averaged $2.20 a gallon at the last election. Now the average is $3.15 a gallon. Part of that is the cost of a barrel of oil, but more of that is a reflection on the future and how unstable some of the world situations are. That is what fluctuates the price of a barrel of oil.

But the price at the pump is affected by the number of refineries we have and the number of regulations Congress puts on the gasoline we use. We saw a spike last month in the price of gasoline. That is the point at which the refineries had to shut down some of their production in order to change over to the requirements we put on for the summer fuel. When that happens, there is less supply, and prices go up. Since the changeover has been made, prices have come down slightly.

These are not positive trends and, unfortunately, there is nothing to indicate the Senate will be acting in a way to increase supply and improve the price of energy for the American people.

My State of Wyoming is an energy-producing State. We produce about a third of the Nation's coal. We produce a million tons of coal a day. We also have large natural gas fields. We are the only State in the Nation that is showing an increasing supply of natural gas. We also produce some oil. We have a significant amount of wind power. We have uranium. Because of a lot of Sun, I am seeing an increasing amount of solar power with each visit to Wyoming.

We have a diversified energy portfolio. We have an energy portfolio that recognizes that coal is the Nation's most abundant resource. In fact, my county has more Btu's in coal than Saudi Arabia has in oil. Our energy portfolio recognizes you can produce natural gas in an environmentally efficient manner. At the same time, our State's portfolio recognizes there is an increasingly important place for wind and other renewable resources. We are trying to do them all, but we cannot neglect the one we have the most of.

The policies on the other side of the aisle do not reflect this need for diversity. While they talk about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, they repeatedly block efforts to produce our domestic resources. As they talk about the need to lower prices for consumers, they advocate policies that will make it more expensive to produce energy. As they talk about the need to increase our Nation's energy security, they vote against policies that will increase the use of our Nation's most abundant domestic energy source.

We are currently debating an energy bill. I want to commend Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for their work on this legislation. There is no question there are some positive provisions in the legislation. I do appreciate that it actually came through committee. I have not seen a bill that has just been brought to the floor, such as the immigration bill, that has ever made it through the process. So this one has a chance of making it through, and I am glad for that. The legislation will help develop biofuels technologies which will allow us to displace some of our Nation's traditional energy supply.

However, the legislation has many flaws, most clearly illustrated by the decision of Senate Democrats to block efforts by members of the Energy Committee who worked to incentivize a technology that can truly reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources. That technology is known as coal-to-liquids, and it is the process of turning our Nation's most abundant energy source--coal--into liquid fuels--incentives instead of stopping the process.

Coal-to-liquids technology is not new. The technology has been around since the 1940s, and there is no question it will be used today in a much better way than even in the 1940s. It would be used in the transportation markets, which is our biggest difficulty.

It can be transported in pipelines that currently exist. And, because it comes from coal--our Nation's most abundant energy source--it can be produced at home by American workers.

Coal-to-liquids plants are being developed in China. They are being developed in other major industrialized nations, but they are not being developed in the United States. I am concerned that, as we sit on the sidelines, other nations will take advantage of our inaction and our economy will suffer.

The amendment offered by Senators Thomas and Bunning that was blocked in the Energy Committee offered a tremendous opportunity to move coal- to-liquids forward. It was a tremendous opportunity to place more of our energy security in the hands of Americans and to take it out of the hands of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other oil barons who seek to do economic harm to the United States. Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, that effort was blocked and instead of debating a more comprehensive energy bill, we are debating one with a glaring weakness.

In addition to the decision to keep coal-to-liquids language out of the legislation, I am concerned that a number of other sections included in the bill make for good talking points, but not for good solutions. Although I understand and sympathize with the problems that high energy prices create for

families, creating a federal price gouging law is not the answer. The authority already exists for investigations into price gouging, and I am concerned that price gouging is simply a code word for ``price controls.'' Such a policy failed in the past and will fail in the future.

I also have concerns about the sections of the legislation that increase corporate average fuel economy standards, and I have concerns that this bill does nothing to address our lack of domestic energy production in areas where production is possible and environmentally responsible.

We are in a situation where our Nation's energy supply does not meet our Nation's energy demand, and, while we must work to reduce our consumption, we should also work to produce as much energy domestically as is possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the Inhofe amendment, which would increase the possibility that we could have increased refining in the United States. Refining of oil

produces more gasoline, and more gasoline will bring down the price of gasoline.

We can't have a serious discussion about energy without discussing the fact that it has been more than 30 years since the last oil refinery was built in the United States. There has to be a reason for that. Although a number of our Nation's refiners have worked on expansions, they simply can't keep up with the growing demand.

It is clear that something is wrong with a permitting process when it is so burdensome it prevents the construction of that which is so vital to our Nation. Because energy fuels our economy, we need to stop with the rhetoric and take some real action.

I have to tell my colleagues that I have faith in America. I have faith in the young people of America. I have faith in the inventors in America, who are of all ages. I am aware of a company in Sheridan, WY, named Big Horn Valve. They have been working on some refinery problems, including leaks in refineries, and they came up with a valve that doesn't have a knob that you turn on the outside of the pipe. Everything is internal in the pipe, and it has a special venturi nozzle in there that doesn't take up the entire inside of the pipe but can still flow as much oil as a flow pipe. The way it works is to turn it off magnetically; it twists and the two spots don't line up. Since it is completely internal to the pipe, there can be no leakage. It is just one small solution to some of the problems that can be solved.

I would mention that with the National Institutes of Health, we have faith in the inventiveness of people. We doubled the budget for research for the National Institutes of Health. I can tell my colleagues that today we have 654 cancer treatments in clinical trials. That is what happens when we incentivize people to come up with solutions.

We need to do that with energy. We are in the midst of a huge energy crisis. China recognizes it. China is buying every available fuel source they can get their hands on. My colleagues probably saw where they tried to buy a company in California. You have probably seen where they bought supplies in Canada. They know the future of the economy is requiring--requiring--energy, particularly fuel to transport things.

Senator Inhofe's amendment recognizes this fact, and it improves the permitting process for new refineries. It establishes an opt-in program for State Governors, requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate all necessary permits for construction or expansion of refineries. It provides participating States with technical and financial resources to assist in permitting, and it establishes deadlines for permit approval.

These vital changes will make it possible for new refineries to finally be built. They make those changes in a way that is environmentally sound. Opponents of this legislation suggest that is not the case and that environmental laws will be pushed aside. Those claims are false. The Environmental Council of States, which represents State departments of environmental quality, clearly stated in a letter that ``the Gas PRICE Act does not weaken environmental laws.'' That act is the one that is in Senator Inhofe's amendment.

In addition to this, the council, along with the National Association of Counties, acknowledged that the Gas PRICE Act streamlining provisions are in compliance with State and local governments.

If this were the only positive section of the Gas PRICE Act, it would be worthy of our support, but this legislation also addresses a second aspect that I believe is missing from the underlying bill. That aspect is the incentivizing of coal-to-liquids technologies.

As drafted, the legislation does nothing to advance the development of coal-to-liquids plants. That is the overall bill, not the amendment. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and Jim Bunning worked hard to move this issue forward and offered an amendment during the committee's consideration of the biofuels legislation to set a blending requirement for coal-derived fuels at 21 billion gallons for the year 2022. Is it possible? Absolutely. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by one vote, and so it wasn't included in the bill.

The Gas PRICE Act addresses this vital issue by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch, diesel and jet fuel, as an emission control strategy. Furthermore, it provides incentives to the Economic Development Administration to build coal-to-liquid refineries and commercial scale cellulosic ethanol refineries at BRAC sites and on Indian land.

These important steps will help jump-start an industry that will help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons. Coal is our Nation's most abundant source. As I mentioned earlier, we have more Btu's in my county in Wyoming alone than all of Saudi Arabia. Using coal to produce diesel and jet fuel will take our energy security out of the hands of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and others who seek to harm our economic interests and put it back in the hands of American citizens.

I am pleased Senator Inhofe has offered this important amendment. It addresses two areas in which the legislation could be improved, and I urge my colleagues to support this approach.

The two areas are to make it possible to actually expand the number of refineries in the United States, and there are places in the United States where those can be built, and safely built. I also think there can be some inventions, such as I mentioned with Big Horn Valve, that will make the refining process much more capable and also environmentally better. But unless we can get rid of that single construction of refineries, we are going to have shortages of gas twice a year immediately, and more often in the future. I do have a lot of confidence that there can be not only coal to liquids, but coal to liquids with a little bit of invention can be done even better than other kinds.

We need to worry about the natural gas supply for this country. A lot of States are placing a huge emphasis on natural gas as the cleanest fuel, and it is. But there is only one State that is producing more natural gas than in previous years, and that is the State of Wyoming. That will not go on forever. If we use it to produce electricity, we are going to run out of natural gas. So those people across the country who are using natural gas to heat their homes should be particularly concerned.

I know one company was looking at having some peaking power for Rapid City, SD, and they were going to do it with natural gas. But the board of directors, as they looked at it, found out that the time they needed the peaking power was in the middle of winter when it was cold because people there use some electricity to heat with. But what they discovered was that the amount of natural gas to provide peaking power in winter in Rapid City would be an equivalent amount of gas to what the whole city of Rapid City uses to heat homes during that same cold spell.

A lot of natural gas has to be used if it is used to produce electricity. We can invent better ways to do that. We can come up with coal to liquids. We can increase our refineries. I hope we will find ways to encourage that rather than discourage that if we are going to truly have an energy policy.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

Madam President, when my plane touched down last night, I received an e-mail that told of the fate of a great man. It was a tremendous surprise to me. I just completed a week in Wyoming of explaining to people that he even timed his chemotherapy so he didn't have to miss votes, and what a tough and strong man he was.

Craig Thomas was a marine at heart, but he was a cowboy in his soul. He was quiet, he was focused, he was independent, he was hard-working. He loved the Senate and he loved the Marines and he loved his horses. The flags have been lowered, and there is a great deal of sadness in our hearts today as we mourn his loss and celebrate his life. I have had a lot of thoughts, but I haven't had a chance to put them together. They come gushing back, together with a lot of tears.

For those of us from Wyoming, Craig Thomas was more than just our Senator. He was our voice in the Senate, and he was never one to back off from a fight, especially when he was battling for two things most dear: what was best for Wyoming and what was best for America.

Craig had long Wyoming roots, and he was very proud of them. He grew up in Cody and became friends with Al Simpson. Later on the two of them would serve together in the Senate. After he graduated from the University of Wyoming, he immediately began his service to the country he loved. He joined the Marine Corps. I am convinced that experience helped to shape his character and molded his destiny. I think his steely resolve and firm will took shape during those days that helped guide him and prepare him for the battles that would come later in his political life.

When Craig's service in the Marine Corps was through, he began what was to be his life's work, which was serving the people of Wyoming to ensure their best interests were taken care of and their needs were addressed.

His first efforts for Wyoming brought him to the Wyoming Farm Bureau and the Wyoming Rural Electric Association.

He was proud of his service with both of these organizations. It kept him actively involved in issues that meant a great deal to him and, more importantly, it kept him in touch with the people of Wyoming and their day-to-day problems. It also set him on the road to doing anything and everything he could to make life easier for his fellow citizens in Wyoming.

I remember the days we served together in the Wyoming House. I was a mayor and had municipal electrical experience. He was with the rural electric association. We worked a lot of electrical bills together at that time. We

could bring in both perspectives, find the middle ground, and make sure all of the people, rural and urban--I use the term ``urban'' for Wyoming rather loosely, but urban--would be able to have low-cost and consistent electricity.

Nobody knew energy or electricity better than Craig. That led him to run for the Wyoming House. Dick Cheney was appointed Secretary of Defense, and Craig ran for it and won his seat. It was not an easy victory, but it showed what a fighter and battler he was as he took on that challenge, which was done in a relatively short period of time. The executive committee just has a few days to select candidates, and then there is a very short time for an election for the position in the Wyoming House. He used his usual toughness, went around the State, talked to everybody, and won that election.

Incidentally, the person he ran against in the primary, Tom Sansonetti, became his chief of staff, which shows how people get along in Wyoming.

To no one's surprise, Craig focused on Wyoming issues in the House and he was reelected. Then when Malcolm Wallop decided to retire, Craig was such a popular choice he didn't have any opposition in the primary. He did face another battle in the general election, but once again his fighting spirit prevailed and he found a way to win. Interestingly enough, the person he defeated in the general election was a very popular Governor of Wyoming who was just ending his term. That Governor was later appointed Ambassador to Ireland by President Clinton. To Craig Thomas's credit, the hearing was scheduled for that ambassadorship before the papers ever got to the Capitol. Ambassador Sullivan did a fantastic job in Ireland.

He won the Senate seat, and 2 years later I ran for the Senate and serve. He is one of the few Wyoming residents who ever served both in the House and in the Senate. It has not been a tradition in Wyoming to move from the House to the Senate. I was elected and then got a chance to work with him again. He was a remarkable man of vision on how to make Wyoming and our country better places to live. He spent a good deal of his time traveling Wyoming. He was one of the most ardent travelers we have ever had in the Senate, going back virtually every weekend, traveling to a different part of the State, talking to people and trying to get their vision for the future.

One of his efforts on that was called Vision 2020. He challenged the people of Wyoming. He stretched the people's imagination on what our State ought to be like in the year 2020. That was in 1998, but we are getting a lot closer to 2020, and I think the State is moving toward the vision that he predicted at that time. It was a goal he cherished and fought for. Many of the things he envisioned, or the people of Wyoming envisioned, have been achieved through his efforts on the Senate floor.

Craig Thomas will long be remembered as one of Wyoming's toughest and fiercest advocates. Craig knew that much of our work gets done in committees, so he pursued those committees that would help him fight for Wyoming in the Senate. He served on the critical Finance Committee. He was a staunch fiscal conservative, and he believed very strongly that people in Wyoming and across the Nation know better how to spend their hard-earned money than does the Federal Government. He used his position on the committee to lighten the tax burden and to make our Tax Code more fair.

He was the ranking member on the Indian Affairs Committee. He served as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee where he was a tireless advocate for our park system. I think he visited most of the parks. Earlier, when our Republican leader was talking about horseback, it was even possible sometimes to see him with the park policemen on horseback taking a look at the parks of the Capitol.

I would mention also that usually when you saw him on horseback you also saw his wife Susan on horseback. She was a tireless traveler and an outstanding campaigner and another person who searches for the visions of Wyoming. In parades, they always rode horses. They had special saddle blankets that helped to say who they were--as if people in Wyoming wouldn't know who they were. I would mention that she was thrown from a horse a couple of times, too. Bands and horses don't always go well in hand. But, as Craig always said, she was the real campaigner in the family. She actually liked it. She does a marvelous job for our State, as well as did Craig.

Craig was very active on all of the agricultural issues and international trade, particularly country-of-origin labeling. He supported our cattlemen with grazing rights and responsible environmental quality incentive programs for runoff issues. He has worked tirelessly to get changes in the Endangered Species Act. He realized that was a national program with national goals and it should not punish individuals or counties or even the States, and that there ought to be responsibility at the Federal level.

With energy, he was the lead sponsor of our soda ash royalty relief bill. He was the lead sponsor on the recreational fee demonstration program that allowed the national parks to keep a higher percentage of the receipts that were received on public lands where they were collected, and he specifically made efforts to include section 413 of the Energy Policy Act, which authorizes Federal cost-share for the building of a coal gasification project above 4,000 feet. That would help get a clean coal plant built in Wyoming, which would prove the technology with Wyoming coal at high altitude. We have huge resources of coal. We ship over one-third of the Nation's coal--over 1 million tons a day.

The reason we ship so much coal is because it is very low sulfur. He was providing a mechanism to be able to have some assurance that coal gasification of this clean coal would be included in projects that we did in the United States. It would help to prove the technology at high altitude and show its viability and would make a difference for all the United States in all their energy in the future.

He was also instrumental in writing the electricity title of EPAct. Recently, his efforts to get a coal-to-liquids section of whatever Energy bill we will be debating, although unsuccessful thus far, advanced the debate to the furthest point it had moved.

During the last FAA reauthorization, Craig was very instrumental in radar upgrades for the Jackson airport, which was imperative for the growth of the city and airport, especially related to tourism. I think Jackson is the only city in Wyoming that has long distance direct flights. Most of them come through Salt Lake or Denver or Minneapolis. But Jackson actually has flights that come from Houston and Atlanta direct.

He also did a lot for Wyoming with two big transportation authorization bills to ensure that the large land area, low-population States, received a fair amount of highway funding. As I mentioned, on fiscal issues he was a staunch conservative who believed the people knew how to spend their money better than the Federal Government.

A few months ago, Craig shared his medical situation with us. He was in for another difficult fight, but he was used to them. He has been a battler all his life. He took the fierce determination that he learned as a marine and brought it to this latest battle against leukemia. Unfortunately, it was a battle this great fighter was not to win.

Although that last battle of his life was lost, there were so many victories in his life that we will long remember. Craig died as he lived, with his spurs on, fighting for Wyoming to the very end. I am sure we all have our favorite instant replay memories of Craig and his unique style.

I have always believed you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit. That was Craig--never one to seek the limelight or to draw attention to himself. He was the one working in committee to assure that the voices of the Wyoming people and America were heard and heard clearly.

For me, I will always remember Craig's spirit, for his spirit in life was a great illustration of the spirit of Wyoming. His life became a living portrait of the American West. He saw the world from the saddle of his horse and from under the brim of his cowboy hat. He was proud of Wyoming and Wyoming was proud to be represented by him.

Craig was my senior Senator. He was my confidant and mentor. But most of

all, he was a very good friend. Diana and I will always feel appreciation for the fact that Craig and Susan made us part of their family. Our prayers are with Susan and their family during these difficult times.

I will miss him. But because he was such a special presence in my life and the lives of so many others, I have a long list of instant replay memories I will always cherish of him: the times we were out on the campaign trail, the legislation we worked on together and, more importantly, the impact he had on my life personally, as he had on so many others.

Wyoming is a different place today because of this great loss of ours. There is great sadness in the State and also great joy as we celebrate the life of one of our special citizens. He was with us for all too short a time, but he will never be forgotten.

I received a book called ``give me Mountains for my Horses,'' by Tom Reed. But what I always ask for is that they give us men to match our mountains and our horses--and that would be Craig.

I want to share just a little piece of this because I know that Craig is already riding in a far better place. It says:

There is a taste to this place, this time. Nothing is

behind you. Everything is ahead. But you don't really think

about what is ahead, you only think of now, for this

partnership you have entered into is one of the moment, of

now. Now has you in a saddle on a bay horse, heading up a

trail of pines and spruce and mountain, of stream and meadow.

Behind you, connected by only your hand and a lead rope but

carrying everything important to you, is another bay horse,

an almost identical match to the one you are riding. You call

them nicknames as if they were human compadres, drinking

buddies. You cluck and coo and talk to them as if they give a

damn about what you have to say. You think they do and maybe,

just maybe [they do].

Right now they are stepping out, heads nodding, down the

trail and through the stream and all you have to do is ride.

So you ride.

That evening as dusk brings the mosquitoes out of the

willows--the same dusk that put the horse flies to bed--you

choose a camp. It is a good place, save for the bugs, with

room for the horses in the broad, deep green meadow and camp

back against the lodgepoles and your kitchen down a ways. So

you ease off the bay's back and stretch your muscles with

that stiff-good, worked-hard feeling, and you begin to unload

the packhorse, talking to him, thanking him. In a while he

has on his hobbles and is out there with his buddy, snorting

contentedly in the tall grass and swishing a long, coal-black

tail at the mosquitoes.

It goes like this for days, the ride, the squeak of the

saddle leather, the smell of dust, the taste of it on your

tongue. The smell of horse sweat and your own and the soft

muzzles nuzzling you after a long day. Good camp after good

camp. Muscles turning hard. Eyes becoming sharp for wildlife.

And riding, always riding.

One evening a big sow grizzly and her cub cross a broad

meadow far out there. A tough gal, rambling, giving you and

your horses a wide berth. But still the binoculars sweat in

your hands and your mouth is dry.

``Boy, what a beautiful animal.''

The next morning a moose walks the same path. You have not

seen another human in days but there's a jet contrail

reminding you that yes, this is the modern world. You ride.

Craig loved the modern world. He worked hard in this body. He would have liked to have been out there in those mountains on those horses enjoying the smell and the sounds. Now he is riding. Ride on my friend, ride on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be a part of this celebration of Senator Ted Stevens's service in the Senate. For those of us who know him, it is more than taking a moment to congratulate him as he becomes the longest serving Republican Senator in the history of the Senate. It is an opportunity to acknowledge all he has done to stand up for the State of Alaska. It is also a chance to take note of the example he provides of leadership and the way he has always put the needs of the people of Alaska at the very top of his work agenda in the Senate. That is why, in 2000, Ted was named the Alaskan of the Century.

Ted is a remarkable guy, and I don't think any Senator is more tied to the day-to-day life of the States we represent and the hearts of the people back home than he is. There are a lot of reasons for that, not the least of which is the certainty Alaskans have that the needs of their State are in good hands because Ted Stevens is championing their cause.

Ted is one of our great environmentalists and it is a philosophy he puts into practice every day in thought, word, and deed. Whenever I think of him, I think of all he has done and continues to do to protect and preserve the natural beauty of Alaska. It is a wonderful State that I have been privileged to visit at Ted's invitation. I have always said that God saved some of his best handiwork for Wyoming. Having seen Alaska, I think he did a good job there too.

If you ask me and those who have come to know him through the years, we will tell you that Ted is a man of action. He says what he means and he means what he says. He works hard for the things he believes in, and in the end, I don't think anyone is better at getting results. That is because Ted knows it is a lot more important to get things done than to get them said. You won't find him content to just give speeches. After all is said, and said with great force, Ted puts his time and effort where his mouth is as he rolls up his sleeves and gets to work.

Ted not only knows and loves the terrain of Alaska, he loves showing it off too. That is why he puts so much of himself into promoting the Kenai Tournament. This great Alaskan tournament gives all who take part a chance to enjoy the fantastic fishing of Alaska, but it is also a great fundraiser that helps provide the funds that are needed to restore and improve the habitat of the salmon in Alaska.

Here in the Senate, Ted has also worked quietly on many bills that were drafted to preserve wild salmon. Whether it is protecting his home State on the floor or promoting it here and back home, Ted Stevens is the voice of Alaska.

Another thing Wyoming and Alaska share is our rural environment. Ted understands the unique needs of rural life better than any Senator I know, and he has been a tireless worker on transportation and communication issues. He worked hard to preserve universal service so people in both our States would have phone service at a reasonable rate. That effort meant a great deal not only to the people of our States but to those who live in other rural areas across the United States as well.

As I have come to know Ted, I have developed a great appreciation for his ability to pick up on the nuances and details of the issues we take up on the Senate floor. He is a fast study, and he is not afraid of any issue, no matter how complicated and complex it is.

Another thing we all think of whenever we think of Ted is that distinctive voice of his. His voice has the same power that his words bring to the debate, and it is that unique way of speaking of his that gets everyone's attention and usually their agreement too.

Through his years in the Senate, Ted has compiled an incredible record for the people of his State. He has won the hearts of Alaskans, and on election day, people from all over the State make it a point to vote for him. He is not just their Senator, he is also a bit of a superhero, too.

Speaking of superheroes, which are near and dear to Ted's heart, in the comics, whenever Dr. Banner faces a difficult challenge that requires superpowers, he turns into the Incredible Hulk. On the Senate floor, if the Incredible Hulk faced a challenge that required superpowers of persuasion and reason, he would probably turn into Ted Stevens.

Congratulations, Ted. We are proud of the record you have established in the Senate. Thank you for your leadership, the unique strengths and abilities you bring to our work, and most of all, thank you for the gift of your friendship.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Louisiana. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

I am disappointed in the way the substitute amendment to S. 1348 was brought before the Senate. I do not believe Senators have had adequate opportunity to fully understand all the impacts this legislation will have on our Nation. Over the next 2 weeks, Senators and staff will continue to study the language. I hope the Senate leadership will ensure that all Members have the opportunity to have their amendments considered by the full Senate. I am pleased an agreement was reached to vote on the Vitter amendment.

If this was the first time the Senate was considering offering amnesty to illegal aliens, I think this debate would be under a different tone. When the 1986 legislation was enacted, Members of the House and Senate had the best of intentions--to improve our border situation and decrease illegal immigration by offering permanent status to those in the United States illegally. Those good intentions, however, were not without fault. We can see that now, 21 years later, and we cannot ignore the problems caused by that legislation.

Our goal here is to make an immigration system that works--one that meets the economic needs of our Nation and allows for legal immigration and legal workers. We need to make it less complicated to immigrate legally rather than illegally. The status quo is just the opposite. It has become so difficult to follow the legal path that many look for the easier route of crossing our border without paperwork, without filing fees, and without bureaucratic delays. It has become so difficult for employers to hire legal temporary workers that many hire illegal immigrants without legal Social Security numbers, without labor certifications, and without bureaucratic delays. Our laws should not be a deterrent to themselves.

Our immigration system is complicated. Our borders remain open. Border security must be the top priority of the debate. We cannot have immigration reform without strengthening the security of our borders. This is why I am pleased that the language the Senate is considering includes triggers that must be met before certain provisions can be enacted.

There are some positive ideas in this legislation, but there remain many problems. The Senate should not pass flawed legislation merely for the sake of voting on something.

Amnesty is one of the main concerns of my constituents in Wyoming. Amnesty sends a message to illegal immigrants that if you break our immigration laws and avoid being detected for several years, the United States will not only forgive you but reward you with permanent resident status. Amnesty encouraged illegal immigration. In 1986, 7 million immigrants were granted amnesty. Today, we are facing an illegal population of over 12 million. The 1986 legislation did not stop illegal immigration. We should not repeat this policy without ensuring that we are not making the same mistake.

I continue to closely examine bill language as new developments unfold and will make decisions keeping in mind what concerns I have heard from the people and businesses of Wyoming. We expect to spend the first week of June continuing to debate and amend the bill. I am concerned about where we will be in 2 weeks on this legislation. This issue is too important to refuse to consider amendments for members of either party.

Again, I state my strong support for Senator Vitter's amendment to remove the amnesty provisions from this legislation. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me in taking a strong stance against amnesty.

With that, I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concern and deep regret over the conference report to H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Appropriations Act of 2007.

I am extremely disappointed our troops have to continue to pay the price for our political posturing on this legislation and the inclusion of funding for pet programs in a must-pass military funding bill.

I want to make very clear my strong support for the members of our Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every day. I have the greatest admiration for all of them, for their commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national security. They are all true heroes, and they are the ones who are doing the heavy lifting and making the great sacrifices in our country's name so we might continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

We are faced with a vote on a bill that our troops need, but the troops are not the focus of this legislation. This supplemental is yet another example of a Congress whose fiscal house is not in order. It contains more than $17 billion in unrequested items--$17 billion in funding that has nothing to do with the war on terror.

The intent of this legislation is to fund our troops and to provide them with the resources they need to win the war on terror. Emergency supplementals are not intended to be a Christmas tree that includes presents in the form of every Member's favorite pet programs. Unfortunately, the bill we will be voting on is just that.

This legislation includes funding for a number of programs I would support on their own merits. It includes agricultural disaster assistance for our Nation's ranchers who have suffered through years of drought. Many of those are in Wyoming. It includes funding for the Secure Rural Schools program. These are both important priorities for people in Wyoming, and although I support the programs on their merits, I do not support their inclusion in this emergency war supplemental.

This legislation is not intended to deal with drought relief. It is not intended to deal with SCHIP. It is not intended to deal with wildland fire management. It is intended to fund our troops. Instead of attaching these unrelated programs to a must-pass troop funding bill, a fiscally responsible Congress would examine each of these programs on their own merits through our regular appropriations process--or else we ought to call ourselves irresponsible.

The American people have made clear that we need to be fiscally responsible. They have made clear they do not support spending billions of taxpayers' dollars with little or no debate. Unfortunately, if this legislation passes, that is exactly what we are going to do.

The war supplemental also touches on various issues before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, including minimum wage and pensions. Unfortunately, our committee was not consulted on this language nor made any part of the discussions on this supplemental.

The supplemental contains a provision that will boost the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. I have always believed any increase in the minimum wage must be accompanied by appropriate relief for those small business employers who have to absorb those costs. It is a mandate. Small businesses are the proven engine for our economy, and they are the greatest source of employment opportunity for U.S. workers. A raise in the minimum wage is of no value to a worker without a job or a job seeker without prospects.

It was for these very reasons the minimum wage package which passed the Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support--overwhelming bipartisan support; I think there were two votes in opposition-- contained a series of provisions designed to provide relief for small businesses. That is how we got it. That was bipartisan.

The Senate-passed versions of the minimum wage legislation contained significant tax relief that was targeted to small businesses and industries most likely to employ minimum wage workers. Unfortunately, much of this tax relief has been stripped from the current version of the supplemental. While some tax relief remains, the lion's share of that relief is contained in the Work Opportunity Tax Credit provisions, which, as a practical matter, are not utilized by small businesses.

While the bill does continue to contain important regulatory relief provisions, such as compliance assistance for small businesses, and a small business childcare grant authorization, the tax relief this body overwhelmingly determined was necessary to help small businesses offset the cost of a new Federal minimum wage is no longer contained in the legislative package, nor were any of us consulted. I cannot support legislation that dramatically raises the Federal minimum wage and fails to acknowledge and adequately offset the impact of such an increase on our small businesses.

With respect to pensions, last year the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions worked with other committees in landmark legislation to author the most extensive overhaul of pension funding rules in a generation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 was signed into law in August 2006, following extensive--extensive--bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Conferees were intent on ensuring that retirement plans are properly funded and that Americans' retirement savings would be there when they need it.

One of the fundamental reasons for pension funding reform was to ensure--to ensure--the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and its ability to guarantee benefits in plans that are underfunded. I am very concerned that there are provisions in the war supplemental that the House leadership claims are technical corrections to the Pension Protection Act. Any changes to the Pension Protection Act must be considered by the committees that have jurisdiction, the ones that know about all the intricacies and interrelationships of the parts that are in there, instead of legislating on an appropriations bill.

Chairman Kennedy and I sent a letter to Senate leadership on Tuesday night citing our concerns with the House approach. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.

Retirement security is a cornerstone of the HELP Committee's jurisdiction. I recognize that technical corrections are needed to the over 900 pages of the Pension Protection Act. Bicameral, staff-level meetings are taking place at this very time, and we are working with the administration to assure that the needed corrections are promptly addressed. With the huge bipartisan, bicameral support that had before, there should be no difficulty with that, and people have been working on it since the very time that we passed it. House leadership, by cherry-picking certain technical corrections intended for certain special interest groups, is not the way to legislate, and I would contend that they are not technical corrections.

Chairman Kennedy and I, together with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, have worked extremely well on making sure that everyone has a voice at the table and that the process is transparent.

Generally, these provisions undo, in a piecemeal fashion, what was accomplished in the Pension Protection Act as far as strengthening funding requirements. It permits some plans to choose to have reduced funding obligations and reduced pension benefit guarantee premiums. In fact, it means that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation must refund some premiums to some employers.

Again, I want to provide our troops with the funding and the resources they need to be successful in all their tasks. Unfortunately, this conference does not make our troops the priority of congressional business. The men and women of our armed services deserve better than this spending bill. The people of the United States deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill that I will introduce today with Senator Baucus--the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act of 2007. This legislation recognizes the current disrepair of our medical liability system and puts into place a process that will provide better results for patients and for doctors.

Our legislation is designed to encourage States to rethink the way the system works so that injured patients receive fair and just compensation in a more timely manner. The new system would also provide consistent and reliable results so that doctors can eliminate the practice of defensive medicine and instead focus on the needs of each individual patient. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen right now because our system is broken.

I know we debate medical litigation frequently here on the floor, but throughout those debates I have noticed something interesting. Whenever we argue the pros and cons of the bills before us, no one ever stands up to argue that the system doesn't need any reform. In fact, everyone in the Senate agrees that our medical litigation system needs to be changed.

Why doesn't anyone try to defend our current medical litigation system? Because it doesn't work. No one--not patients or health care providers--are appropriately served by our current procedures. Right now, many patients who are hurt by negligent actions receive no compensation for their loss. Those who do receive a mere 40 cents of every premium dollar, given the high costs of legal fees and administrative costs. That is simply a waste of medical resources. The randomness and delay associated with medical litigation does not contribute to timely, reasonable compensation for most injured patients. Some injured patients get huge jury awards, while many others get nothing at all. It is important to patients and doctors that our justice system is perceived as both efficient and fair. Furthermore, the likelihood and the outcomes of lawsuits and settlements bear little relation to whether a healthcare provider was at fault. Consequently, we are not learning from our mistakes. Rather, we are simply diverting our doctors. When someone has a medical emergency they want to see a doctor in an operating room, not a court room.

The medical liability system is losing information that could be used to improve the practice of medicine. Although zero medical errors is an unattainable goal, the reduction of medical errors, should be the ultimate goal in medical liability reform. The Institute of Medicine, in its seminal study, ``To Err is Human,'' estimated that preventable medical errors kill somewhere between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans each year. That study further emphasized that to improve our health care outcomes, we should no longer focus on individual situations but on the whole systems of care that are failing American patients. In the 8 years since that study, little progress has been made. Instead, the practice of medicine has become more specialized and complex, while the tort system has forced more focus on individual blame than on system safety.

To mitigate that individual blame, doctors practice ``defensive medicine.'' Simply stated, ``defensive medicine'' occurs when a doctor departs from doing what is best for the patient because of fear of a lawsuit. Defensive medicine can mean ordering more tests or providing more treatment than necessary. For instance, a doctor might order an unnecessary and painful biopsy. Some estimates suggest that Americans will pay $70 billion for defensive medicine this year. Even if it is half that, it is still way too much.

Let's face it. Our medical litigation system is in need of repair. It fails to achieve its twin objectives. It doesn't provide fair and fast compensation to injured patients, and it doesn't effectively deter future mistakes. Even worse, it replaces the element of trust that is so vital to the provider-patient relationship with distrust. We can make it better.

That is why I am introducing this key legislation with Senator Baucus today. Our bill would provide $5 million to 10 States to initiate, fund, and evaluate demonstration projects that offer alternatives to traditional tort litigation. It will not pre-empt State law. It will allow States to find creative alternatives that will work much better for patients and providers in each State. The States have been policy pioneers in many areas before, including workers' compensation, welfare reform, and electricity deregulation. Medical litigation should be the next item on the agenda of the laboratories of democracy that are our 50 States. Let's take a step forward for American patients and their doctors by allowing this framework to move forward and make the changes that we all know are needed.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill that I will introduce today with Senator Baucus--the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act of 2007. This legislation recognizes the current disrepair of our medical liability system and puts into place a process that will provide better results for patients and for doctors.

Our legislation is designed to encourage States to rethink the way the system works so that injured patients receive fair and just compensation in a more timely manner. The new system would also provide consistent and reliable results so that doctors can eliminate the practice of defensive medicine and instead focus on the needs of each individual patient. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen right now because our system is broken.

I know we debate medical litigation frequently here on the floor, but throughout those debates I have noticed something interesting. Whenever we argue the pros and cons of the bills before us, no one ever stands up to argue that the system doesn't need any reform. In fact, everyone in the Senate agrees that our medical litigation system needs to be changed.

Why doesn't anyone try to defend our current medical litigation system? Because it doesn't work. No one--not patients or health care providers--are appropriately served by our current procedures. Right now, many patients who are hurt by negligent actions receive no compensation for their loss. Those who do receive a mere 40 cents of every premium dollar, given the high costs of legal fees and administrative costs. That is simply a waste of medical resources. The randomness and delay associated with medical litigation does not contribute to timely, reasonable compensation for most injured patients. Some injured patients get huge jury awards, while many others get nothing at all. It is important to patients and doctors that our justice system is perceived as both efficient and fair. Furthermore, the likelihood and the outcomes of lawsuits and settlements bear little relation to whether a healthcare provider was at fault. Consequently, we are not learning from our mistakes. Rather, we are simply diverting our doctors. When someone has a medical emergency they want to see a doctor in an operating room, not a court room.

The medical liability system is losing information that could be used to improve the practice of medicine. Although zero medical errors is an unattainable goal, the reduction of medical errors, should be the ultimate goal in medical liability reform. The Institute of Medicine, in its seminal study, ``To Err is Human,'' estimated that preventable medical errors kill somewhere between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans each year. That study further emphasized that to improve our health care outcomes, we should no longer focus on individual situations but on the whole systems of care that are failing American patients. In the 8 years since that study, little progress has been made. Instead, the practice of medicine has become more specialized and complex, while the tort system has forced more focus on individual blame than on system safety.

To mitigate that individual blame, doctors practice ``defensive medicine.'' Simply stated, ``defensive medicine'' occurs when a doctor departs from doing what is best for the patient because of fear of a lawsuit. Defensive medicine can mean ordering more tests or providing more treatment than necessary. For instance, a doctor might order an unnecessary and painful biopsy. Some estimates suggest that Americans will pay $70 billion for defensive medicine this year. Even if it is half that, it is still way too much.

Let's face it. Our medical litigation system is in need of repair. It fails to achieve its twin objectives. It doesn't provide fair and fast compensation to injured patients, and it doesn't effectively deter future mistakes. Even worse, it replaces the element of trust that is so vital to the provider-patient relationship with distrust. We can make it better.

That is why I am introducing this key legislation with Senator Baucus today. Our bill would provide $5 million to 10 States to initiate, fund, and evaluate demonstration projects that offer alternatives to traditional tort litigation. It will not pre-empt State law. It will allow States to find creative alternatives that will work much better for patients and providers in each State. The States have been policy pioneers in many areas before, including workers' compensation, welfare reform, and electricity deregulation. Medical litigation should be the next item on the agenda of the laboratories of democracy that are our 50 States. Let's take a step forward for American patients and their doctors by allowing this framework to move forward and make the changes that we all know are needed.

Madam President, as the Senate debates the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution conference agreement, I want to first acknowledge the hard work of Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg throughout this fiscal year 2008 budget cycle. While I do not always agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee, I do appreciate the hard work it takes to get a budget through Congress.

I also want to acknowledge the importance of writing and passing a budget resolution. This document is a vital part of the operation of Congress. It sets a fiscal blueprint that Congress will follow for the year and establishes procedural hurdles when these guidelines are not adhered to. Because this is such an important document, I am even more disappointed with the fact that this was not a bipartisan process.

Not being included in the crafting of this budget is far less important than the fact that this budget does little to help our economy. From the day we marked up this budget in committee, this document has been a tax-and-spend, big-government budget. It also fails to make meaningful reductions in mandatory spending--even though our Nation's mandatory health programs are growing each year by more than 6 percent, an unsustainable level.

It is not right to overspend now--and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren to pay later. It is regrettable that during this budget debate, the Senate was unable to work across party lines and do more to shore up our economic future.

As my colleagues may know, this conference report contains a reconciliation instruction for the HELP Committee, where I serve as the senior Republican senator. This reconciliation instruction directs the HELP Committee to produce $750 million in deficit reduction over 6 years. The Senate-passed resolution did not contain any reconciliation instructions. However, the House-passed budget did contain such an instruction that called for $75 million in savings. Reconciliation became a ``conferencable'' item because the differences between the two Chambers needed to be resolved.

Recall that during Senate consideration of the budget resolution this year, we never debated reconciliation. Chairman Conrad chose not to include it in his budget. That was his choice. He held hearings earlier this year relating to our Nation's long-term fiscal challenges, and I commend him for that. Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt testified before the Budget Committee in March that the demand on Federal general revenues for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security exceeds $50 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--over the next 75 years based on current law and program operations. But the Senate- passed budget, which I voted against, failed to address these challenges.

Now today we are debating a conference agreement that directs the HELP Committee to reduce the deficit by just $750 million over 6 years. Mr. President, I said million, with an ``m.'' I would like to explain to my colleagues what is really going on in this budget.

In his fiscal year 2008 budget request, the President proposed nearly $18 billion in savings related to higher education. Most of these savings are achieved by cutting subsidies the banks are currently receiving. Democratic leadership is also looking at reducing many of these same subsidies in the $20 billion range and possibly even larger.

This conference agreement allows for these mandatory higher education proposals to be advanced through the reconciliation process. That means limited debate, strict germaneness requirements on amendments, and a simple majority vote to pass the bill. But with just a $750 million savings requirement, the process will be used to fast-track massive new entitlement spending. A more honest reconciliation and deficit reduction debate would be to limit the new spending in a reconciliation bill to 30 or even 40 percent of the total savings. But right now this budget is teed up to allow $20 billion or more in new spending, with the deficit reduction component amounting to merely a rounding error in a gigantic spending proposal.

I wrote a reconciliation bill in 2005 when I had the privilege of chairing the HELP Committee. The title that I authored reduced the deficit by $15.5 billion over 5 years. In addition to the deficit reduction, the bill created new mandatory grant aid proposals, academic competitiveness and SMART grants. It also increased loan limits so students could better finance their education. That reconciliation bill spent roughly $9 billion on brand-new student benefits, all fully paid for. About 40 percent of my total savings was spent on new programs, and the remaining funds paid down the deficit.

But this budget we are debating today says if the majority party can find $20 billion or even $30 or more billion in savings, they can fast- track and spend 95 percent of those savings. This is an offensive use of the reconciliation process. This year, if just one-half of the Senate authorizing committees could equal the level of deficit reduction that the HELP Committee achieved in 2005, the deficit would be reduced by an additional $100 billion.

During the Budget Committee and floor consideration of the resolution, I also spent a great deal of time on health-related issues. I am greatly disappointed that this conference agreement contains a deficit neutral reserve fund that encourages repealing the ``non- interference'' clause from the Medicare law. This is an issue that came before the Senate a few weeks ago and failed. It failed because it is bad policy. The ``non-interference'' language in the Medicare law prevents the Federal Government from fixing prices on Medicare drugs or placing nationwide limits on the drugs that will be available to seniors and the disabled. I support this language 100 percent, but this conference agreement supports striking this language that protects patients. Decisions on what drugs should be available should be made by seniors and their doctors, not by politicians.

I am happy to see, however, that this conference agreement retains the reserve fund for health information technology legislation that I worked to get into the Senate budget resolution. The HELP Committee is currently working on a bill to increase the widespread adoption of health IT. What does that mean? That means we are working on a bill that will eventually do away with clipboards in doctors' offices. Every time I go to the doctor, someone hands me a clipboard to fill out everything I can remember about myself. This is no easy task, and as I get older, this task gets even harder. Wouldn't it be great if, instead, doctors had electronic medical records that could keep track of this information for me, if my doctor's computer in Wyoming could talk to my doctor's computer in Washington? Well, the bill I am about to introduce is the first step in making that happen. And if that does happen and most of the doctors and hospitals in this country start using health IT, the RAND Corporation estimates we could save between $80 and $162 billion a year. That is amazing savings, and I am happy to see that this language was included in this conference agreement.

I am also pleased to see that the conference agreement includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for improvements in health insurance coverage. This spring, I have been talking to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about writing legislation that reduces the number of uninsured, improves health care quality and access, and reduces the growth in the cost of private health insurance by facilitating market- based pooling across State lines. My hope is that a commonsense proposal similar to this would meet the criteria established in this reserve fund.

As we move forward and complete this resolution and start working on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills, I wanted to mention a few programs that are important to Wyoming.

As our Nation's most abundant energy source, coal must play a central role in electrical generation for years to come. In order for that to happen, we need to continue finding ways to make coal generation cleaner. Programs like the Clean Coal Power Initiative will play a major role in making that happen, and so I support increased funding of this program.

We also need to see proper funding of the Federal loan guarantee program. Federal loan guarantees can play an important role in developing new energy projects. It is my hope that we can provide enough funding to get some of these projects off the drawing board, and most specifically, I hope that we provide funding to the Department of Energy to move forward with loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids projects. Coal-to-liquids technology has the potential to help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons and should be explored.

In addition, funding for rural air service and maintenance is essential for States such as Wyoming. Without Federal support through essential air service and airport improvement programs, many rural communities would have no commercial air service and extremely limited general aviation. I hope this issue will be part of the debate on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration this year. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the importance of this funding, not only as a matter of dependability but also as a public safety issue.

I want to mention two additional issues of great importance to Wyoming and other rural States: housing and homelessness. The McKinney Vento Homelessness Assistance Act is the primary law through which Congress funds homelessness programs in the United States. Unfortunately, rural States have historically received very little of this money. Yet rural States must confront homelessness too, and the geographic size of our States further complicates our efforts. In response to this, Congress authorized the Rural Homelessness Grant Program in 1992 under the McKinney-Vento Act. This program provides funding for transitional housing and education services in rural States, as well as rental or downpayment assistance. The intent of this program is to level the playing field between rural and urban States. Unfortunately, this program has never been appropriated funds since its creation, so the purpose of this program has never been fulfilled and rural States continue to suffer. This can be a valuable program for rural States like Wyoming.

I would like to briefly call attention to the Small Business Administration. I serve on the Small Business Committee and enjoy using my small business experience to help make a difference in the lives of many people in Wyoming and throughout the country. We are working in Wyoming to stabilize and steadily grow our small businesses through the utilization of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, Program. The risk and expense of conducting serious research and development efforts are often beyond the means of many small businesses, especially rural small businesses. By reserving a specific percentage of Federal R&D funds for small business, SBIR enables small businesses to compete on the same level as larger businesses and stimulate high-tech innovation in their rural States.

The FAST and Rural Outreach programs are congressionally authorized

programs that provide technical assistance that helps Wyoming's small businesses utilize the SBIR Program.

Finally, the Agriculture Committee has a big task in reauthorizing the farm bill this year. Writing a tight budget that will help us reach our long-term fiscal goals is a priority for me. Though you cannot tell by the name, the farm bill affects the lives of many unsuspecting Americans. Policies and projects for distance learning, conservation, food assistance, renewable fuels, and our forests are provided for in the farm bill, in addition to the well-known commodity programs.

So in closing, I want to inform my colleagues that this is not a courageous budget. It fails to make the tough choices and it passes the debts we carry today on to our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and vote no on the conference agreement.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Student Information Means a Positive Loan Experience Act, the SIMPLE Act, which I, along with Senators Alexander, Allard, Burr and Isakson, am introducing today. With the increasing debt level of many students, it is important to make sure borrowers have good options for managing their debt and good information on the available options so they make wise, informed decisions.

We are calling this the SIMPLE Act for a reason. We have heard testimony from experts and comments from borrowers and other stakeholders about the information borrowers receive currently. On the one hand, borrowers receive so much information that they have ``information overload,'' which leads to confusion. On the other hand, many borrowers do not receive good information about the full range of tools available to help them repay their loans. What has come through loud and clear is that we need to simplify the information and spell out the impact of selecting various options. Borrowers need better, clearer information to help them make better decisions, not more repayment plans and confusing choices.

There are already four repayment plans in the Federal Family Education Loan program and four in Direct Loans. From the data we have obtained, it is clear that the vast majority of borrowers with Stafford loans have a standard repayment plan. Many borrowers are not taking advantage of the graduated, extended or income sensitive/income contingent repayment plans currently available.

Rather than adding another repayment plan, this bill makes the existing repayment plans more flexible, by providing borrowers with the option to pay only the interest on their loans for the first 2 years they are in repayment, regardless of their repayment plan. The bill also expands access to the extended repayment plan to borrowers with $20,000 of student loan debt, instead of the $30,000 currently needed to qualify for extended repayment plans.

The bill also revises the definition of economic hardship, raising the eligibility cut-off point to 150 percent of the poverty line and taking family size into account when making the determination of eligibility.

To make sure borrowers understand the availability of the various options, and the impact different repayment plans would have on their payments, the bill expands and clarifies the information to be provided to borrowers during their exit interview. Information on repayment plans available will include a discussion of the different features of each plan, average anticipated monthly payment amounts, and the ability of the borrower to prepay their loans or to change repayment plans.

The bill requires borrowers to be provided with clear information on the availability of deferment and forbearance. These are two excellent debt management tools, but borrowers must understand the potential impact on their loan principal and total interest paid on their loans when they choose these options.

During exit counseling, borrowers must also be provided with information on the effect of consolidating student loans on the borrower's underlying loan benefits, including grace periods, loan forgiveness and cancellation. Borrowers must be informed that different lenders offering consolidation loans may offer different borrower benefits.

Last, but not least, borrowers must be given notice that information on their student loans is housed in the National Student Loan Database and they must be told how to access their information. It will help them keep track of the status of their loans and the outstanding principal.

All of this is designed to help borrowers ask questions first, then make decisions that are right for them. The concept is simple, and requires a few, but essential changes to the Higher Education Act to put them into effect.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Student Financial Aid Data Privacy Protection Act, which I, along with Senators Alexander, Allard, Burr, Isakson and Roberts, am

introducing today. In a climate where our personal financial information is at risk, it is now more important than ever to ensure that the Department of Education is providing appropriate safeguards around one of the world's largest databases, National Student Loan Data System.

The Department of Education has not inspired confidence in its ability to protect its data systems from those bad actors who would misuse the financial information of students and parents. Indeed in 2006 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform gave the Department of Education a failing grade for its efforts to improve the security of its data systems in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act.

More recently, on April 17 of this year the Department of Education suspended the access of lenders, services and guaranty agencies to the National Student Loan Data System. While I am pleased to see that the Department of Education is monitoring this database, it is clear from the information provided by the Department of Education that this unprecedented restriction of access was done without having in place clear standard operating procedures for limiting and restoring access to the database.

The National Student Loan Data System is a vital tool for lenders, universities and students. It is a system that is absolutely essential to the efficient functioning of our country's higher education loan and grant programs. When the operation of this system suffers, students suffer.

Students and parents depend on this system to consolidate their loans. Lenders and guaranty agencies depend on this system to verify whether students should be entering their repayment period. And our institutions of higher education depend on this system to determine whether students are exceeding caps on how much they should be borrowing to attend college.

This bill sets out operating principles for the National Student Loan Data System, to ensure that the Department of Education continues to manage this database in manner that advances the best interests of students. The bill requires the Department of Education establish protocols for limiting access to the database when there are suspicions that the system is being used inappropriately, and the steps to be taken in order to restore access.

This bill also requires the Department of Education, lenders and guaranty agencies to assist students and parents in better understanding how their sensitive, financial information is entered into the National Student Loan Data System and then accessed by thousands of lenders, consolidators and guaranty agencies across the country.

Finally, the bill prohibits nongovernmental researchers and policy analysts from accessing sensitive borrower-specific information, and directs the Secretary of Education to explore ways to empower students and parents to control which lenders are accessing their sensitive, financial information.

We must help the 14.3 million students and their families who trust the Department of Education to protect their personal financial information. Action is needed to restore confidence in the ability of the Department of Education to manage the National Student Loan Data System. I want to thank Senators Alexander, Allard, Burr, Isakson and Roberts for joining me in this effort, and look forward to this bill being included in our efforts to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

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

Yes. This is the intent.

Yes. The language in the bill recognizes that travel in frontier areas, particularly in remote places such as Alaska, can be time-consuming and expensive, so it specifically notes that the training or certification should be available in a widely available training or certification method, such as an online course or through the mail. This is intended to reduce the amount of travel and expense a willing provider in a frontier area must undertake in order to be able to prescribe or dispense needed medicines to their

While I cannot give the Senator a guaranteed time frame, I would point out that the training and certification is specifically for the drug the provider is seeking to prescribe or dispense--not for a range of drugs. Thus, the time frame should not be a lengthy one, particularly if the training can be conducted online.

I thank the Senator for that question. The language in the bill specifically says that the training or certification shall be available to any willing provider from a frontier area. Shall be available--not may be available, but shall. It is the intent of Congress in this section to direct the FDA to guarantee that a willing provider will have access to the training and certification needed to prescribe a particular drug. And again, the language that encourages the availability of an online course or course through the mail is one way to provide for that training or certification at minimal cost.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for the statement he made a little bit earlier but mostly for the 2\1/2\ years' worth of effort he and I have put into this bill. It has been a very cooperative process between he and I and between the Members on both sides of the aisle on the committee.

There have been a lot of points raised about food and drug safety, particularly drug safety. It has been a cooperative process, as I mentioned. We have had a lot of questions. We have had some disagreements. But what that has resulted in is going back and getting more information and finding a way that we can come up with a solution that will provide more assurance to Americans that their drugs will be safe.

I also wish to thank the people at the Food and Drug Administration for their participation in this lengthy process and providing answers. It has been a long road for this bill. I do strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage and endorse the most comprehensive drug safety overhaul in more than a decade.

Completion of this bill marks yet another significant step in the process, but there is more work to be done. The House needs to pass their version of the legislation, and then the two bodies need to work out differences in the conference committee. My hope and expectation is that the House will act in a reasonable manner and soon because this is widely considered to be must-pass legislation.

This key FDA package includes four reauthorizations that must be done this year, along with the essential new authorities for the FDA to be able to react in a timely way to safety problems that arise after a drug has been brought to the market.

I would like to take a couple minutes to recap for my colleagues the path this legislation has taken thus far. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions conducted a top-to-bottom review of the FDA's drug safety and approval processes over 2 years ago. We did that at the same time the Finance Committee was doing a review of the FDA's safety approval processes.

We used this information plus information from other Senators to do this bill. The bill is a culmination of that review and our continued evaluation and analysis of the FDA. 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 the drugs they purchase to treat illnesses and chronic medical conditions can be relied upon and trusted.

Given the limitations we identified during our review of the FDA, I felt strongly it was necessary to correct those problems and ensure that the FDA has the right tools in the toolbox to address drug safety after the drug is on the market. That is why this bill creates the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or REMS. The REMS give the FDA the full toolbox of options for dealing with potential safety problems, even if they are discovered after the drug is first marketed.

Our goal is to get the drugs to the market quicker and to discover problems faster and get them corrected. With this new toolbox, the FDA has the ability to identify side effects after the drug is marketed through active surveillance. FDA has the authority to request a separate study or clinical trial to learn more about a particular potential safety problem.

FDA can also obtain timely label changes for the first time under this Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy System. Through the REMS process, the bill also makes several key improvements to how patients get their information through advertising and labeling.

I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Roberts, for his tireless efforts to provide an appropriate balance for direct-to-consumer advertising. It was not an easy task to reconcile some very different opinions. I am so pleased we were able to reach a resolution on this issue that we can all support.

I also thank my colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy, for their hard work on this issue. Senator Roberts had planned to vote for S. 1082 but cannot be here today because he is in Kansas showing the President the damage from the tornadoes. I wish him all the best in helping his State recover from that tragedy.

The FDA currently has very little authority to require labeling changes after a drug is brought to market. We have included provisions that ensure discussions between FDA and a drug manufacturer regarding the labeling changes come to a close quickly and effectively, rather than relying on FDA's nuclear option, which is pulling the drug completely off the market.

This legislation gives FDA the tools needed to get drugs to the market quickly and efficiently and to respond to potential problems the same way, especially when lives are on the line and people need new drugs and therapies.

FDA currently has no mechanism from 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 allows for routine, active safe monitoring using large linked databases, what I call health IT for drug safety. I wish to thank Senator Gregg for being the champion of this provision and ensuring that we crafted this provision properly.

Not every drug will need a REMS. However, every drug will need a very active FDA, an FDA with all the necessary tools to identify and quickly manage additional risks.

Title IV of the bill before us contains a number of critical provisions to improve children's health. Up to 75 percent of drugs used by kids have not been tested in kids. Without information from pediatric studies, kids are often overdosed, underdosed or receive ineffective treatment. They may suffer needlessly or even die. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act makes drugs safer for kids by creating incentives to perform pediatric drug studies. The incentives have produced astonishing results. In the 7 years before BPCA incentives, a total of 11 pediatric studies were performed; 7 years, 11 studies.

In the 10 years since incentives were authorized, at least 132 studies have been completed and more are underway. As a grandfather, I am very happy that the law is in place. If my grandson Trey is sick, I want the drugs he needs to have been tested for kids. All of us want that for our children and grandchildren.

The bill also reauthorizes a companion study, the Pediatric Research Improvement Act, which enables FDA to require a pediatric study if it is not done under the incentive program or through the National Institutes of Health. These two laws work together as a carrot and a stick. I strongly support their reauthorization and continuing to keep them together.

Now, so far I have only talked about drugs for kids. The bill will also make medical devices safer for kids. Devices designed for adults might not fit in kids. A scaled-down device might fit at first, but a child can grow out of it, so doctors have to jury-rig adult devices, improvise or use more invasive treatments. In addition, the market for kids' devices is small, and the development costs are very high, so few kids' devices get made.

The bill before us creates new incentives to grow the market for kid's medical devices. I am hopeful these new incentives will be as helpful as the kids' drug incentive. I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Allard, Senator Bond, Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton, and others for their leadership on behalf of kids.

A number of other FDA issues were also addressed during debate of this legislation. The legislation was improved when the Senate adopted a food safety amendment by a vote of 94 to 0. This amendment adds additional food safety provisions to better protect our pet food supply and track when food is adulterated. My colleagues and I also reached consensus that the issue of follow-on biologics will be addressed in the Help Committee early this summer.

As my colleagues know, I have some concerns with the Dorgan amendment on drug importation that was adopted last week. I supported the Cochran safety amendment that was also adopted. I did not support the Dorgan approach to foreign drug importation because I do not believe it adequately ensures the safety of the prescription drug supply.

I was pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Dorgan, to add some very significant anticounterfeiting language to the bill in the managers' amendment. But a lot of work still remains. I support the process moving forward, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and Senator Dorgan and Senator Snowe to improve this language during the conference process.

Finally, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his work on the antibiotics and other Hatch-Waxman issues and the follow-on biologics. Senator Hatch was responsible for the first FDA Revitalization Act in 1990, before I was even elected a Member of the Senate. I would like to thank him for helping me to bring that full circle and for the mentoring he has done as a former chairman of the committee.

I will have a lot more thank-yous to deliver after the votes, but right now we have a bit of business left to conduct.

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

Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, No. 1039, regarding the joint signing authority under the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. This amendment would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into an agency that we have designed to be nimble and responsive in their process to deal with emerging drug safety issues.

Before the bill is passed, the option after market is to suggest changes or pull the drug off the market, kind of a nuclear option. The underlying bill has surveillance and techniques to notice problems quicker. That is why we will be able to get drugs on to the market faster. The underlying bill does have a dispute resolution process with firm and tight deadlines. There is both one with companies and with staff disputes. It requires by its very nature close collaboration between the two offices. This amendment only serves to separate what should be a together process and delay what should be a rapid process.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. The tools we have put in the toolbox will do what the Senator from Iowa wants to have done, which is quick response when there is a problem. I hope we don't add this extra layer of bureaucracy. We looked at this problem through a number of hearings and a number of concerns by members on the committee from both sides and came up with this third way for being able to do it that had not been polarized and that had some agreement. I hope people will stick with what is in the bill.

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

Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need.

I thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for his participation in this bill. It has been tremendous. I mentioned the hearings he held, as we were holding hearings, as there were some crises with food and drugs. The valuable information he shared with us, as well as amendments, as he has correctly stated, are already a part of the bill.

With respect to amendment No. 998, I also have to oppose this amendment regarding the level of civil monetary penalties that can be assessed for violations of the drug safety plan.

I appreciate Senator Kennedy's earlier comments. The level of civil penalties in the underlying bill was carefully crafted to reflect existing FDA policies for other regulated products. This is the first time we have had civil penalties in this portion covering the area of food and drugs. It was no small feat to get a consensus position so that we could have civil penalties in the bill, and I think that is necessary.

There is a precedent for the levels that we have selected, the current levels. Medical devices has the same levels. I reiterate that has never before been available to the FDA as a tool on drug safety issues, but we are providing it as a tool. Furthermore, I believe the very threat of a civil penalty is sufficient to deter bad behavior. This is the name-and-shame principle. The fine may be affordable to the company, but the loss of reputation is not.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment as well. This is not the end of the process. I suspect the House will have something to say on it, as I have mentioned to the Senator from Iowa before. There will be additional negotiations, I am certain, on civil penalties. I hope we will stick with the civil penalties that have a basis in the medical devices as some basis from which to negotiate and would hope that the Senate position will be the one that is in the bill. I ask people to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have to make some comments in regard to the other amendment we will be voting on this morning, which I also hope people will oppose, and that is amendment No. 1034, offered by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin.

The FDA relies on 30 advisory committees to provide independent expert advice, which lends credibility to the product review process and informs consumers of trends and product development. Given the complex issues that are considered by the FDA, outside help is needed and beneficial, and it is advisory. The decisions are not made by the committees. They advise. But any scientist who is expert enough to merit interest by the FDA has almost certainly merited interest by other entities, such as granting agencies and companies involved in the field.

This amendment would seriously limit the FDA's ability to access the best experts in the field to assist the Agency with its decisionmaking process. It would restrict FDA to granting only one waiver per committee meeting.

How would the FDA decide who gets that one waiver? Who is more worthy, the toxicologist, the drug safety expert, the specialist in women's health? These are not easy answers.

The FDA, in March, released a guidance document outlining strict new limits on evaluating advisory personnel committee members for service. The comment period on this guidance has not even closed. It is premature to void that guidance before we even know whether and how it will work.

Let's take a step back and think about what might happen if we do not allow people who have worked with or for industry to be involved in an advisory committee meeting.

Louis Pasteur was a brilliant microbiologist who revolutionized human food and health safety. Every time you buy milk in the grocery store, you are benefiting from his contributions to society. But under the Durbin amendment, Pasteur would probably not have been able to serve on any advisory committee. You see, Pasteur's research was funded by the wine industry.

Now, do you want to prevent the FDA from benefiting from the advice of the best and the brightest they have to offer? We do want to move so there are not conflicts of interest. I think the guidelines that are out there, if finalized, will do that. The amendment almost gets into a position of not conflicts of interest but biases--much harder to determine. If we are going to do that, we will never be able to have anybody on any of the committees, particularly with the expertise we need.

So I ask we oppose that amendment as well.

I yield time to the Republican leader.

Mr. President, I have a number of people I need to thank for their efforts on this bill, and I will do that following the vote so that we don't hold up the vote.

There has been tremendous cooperation, effort, knowledge, and capability that has been involved, not just of the Senators but also of the staffs. The staffs on both sides of the aisle have spent countless hours on this, even on weekends. In fact, I know of one day on one weekend they worked about 20 hours together to pull this thing together and get some of the final issues worked out. But they worked the entire weekend for at least the last three weekends. They will look forward to a little time to rest, and we will probably give them a day. That is because we have so many things happening in the committee, and Senator Kennedy and I are determined to get a lot of that done to help the American people with their health and with their education and in the area of workplace safety and training and pensions.

But on this bill, I hope people will join us in supporting it. Of course I hope they will join us in maintaining a balance to take it to conference committee and to defeat the three amendments that are before us this morning.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 1039

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate the thought that went into it, and I know that before we did this bill and put into place some of the processes we have in the toolbox for postapproval--which, nevertheless, existed before for the FDA--this amendment would have been necessary. But in light of the toolbox we provide and the dispute resolution we have, it would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.

We have designed the bill to be a nimble and responsive process to deal with emerging drug safety issues. We want drugs on the market faster, we want to know about anything that goes wrong faster, and we think that is built into it. We do have a dispute resolution in the bill with tight guidelines that will result in rapid approvals. We don't need the additional process.

The amendment separates what should be together and delays what

should be rapid. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 998

Mr. President, I have to oppose this amendment in keeping with having a balance in the bill that we have agreed on. This is the first time civil monetary penalties have been assessed for violations of the drug safety plan. That is what is in our bill. We do have civil penalties in the bill. The civil penalties are the same as the medical devices. That is how we decided at what level to do it.

We added civil penalties, and there will be more work done on this issue probably as we get to conference. I want to establish the fact that civil penalties are in the bill. I want to arrive at the level that the civil penalties are assessed with more consideration and with debate with the House. This amendment could burden small businesses and create problems there.

Civil penalties are part of the bill we put together with a compromise. I ask that my colleagues vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and I have a few minutes here to thank some of the people involved. I have checked with the people who would be involved with the judges, and they have no objection.

Mr. President, I do want to take a few minutes to thank the leaders, particularly the majority leader, who, after some difficulties last week, helped to smooth some things out and make it possible for us to move on a little bit on the bill. His coordination and leadership were indispensable.

I thank the Republican leader for the way he participated in the bill and, again, made sure we were working across the aisle and getting difficulties smoothed out.

I definitely wish to thank the chairman of the committee for the outstanding work he did through the entire process. As we mentioned a number of times, it has been a very lengthy process, but he has always been so forthright and knowledgeable and willing to work under all kinds of circumstances and difficulties. Because of his dedication and abilities, I have learned a lot about running the committee from him and I have learned a lot about getting a bill passed from him and have enjoyed working with him over the last 2 years on a number of bills.

I thank the staff people who have worked so hard. They have spent many evenings and even weekends away from their homes. They worked virtually through the night to get some of these issues worked out. The way we work a bill, it is a work in progress until it is finished. It is not finished yet; we have got to work with the House side yet, and we will do that.

This is such an important bill for the country. My HELP 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. Shana was promoted to her leadership position in January of this year. She took ahold of the reins, has incredible knowledge, dedication, and negotiating experience and expertise that helped bring this bill to fruition.

I also want to greatly thank Amy Muhlberg, our crackerjack expert who knows all things FDA. Her knowledge and drafting skills were central to this bill.

I thank Keith Flanagan for his work on the children's statutes in this bill, and Dave Schmickel, who is our resident drug patent expert, for his ongoing work on follow-on biologics.

Others on the team I would like to thank include Todd Spangler and Brittany Moore, who provided the required backup that goes with moving a bill of this magnitude.

Finally, I thank my staff director, Katherine McGuire, whose steady hand in negotiating and communication skills and ability to juggle a number of issues at the same time and tap dance and do all sorts of things that make these bills possible provided the cement for the entire process.

I would also like to thank Ilyse Schuman, my chief counsel, for her precision and attention to detail.

I thank Amy Angelier Shank for her great work on the budget aspects of the bill; my press team, Craig Orfield and Mike Mahaffey; and my chief of staff, Flip McConnaughey, who was good at putting out brushfires throughout the process and kind of maintaining the core to our whole process.

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

As I mentioned before, Senator Hatch was responsible for the first FDA Revitalization Act, and I would like to thank him and his staff, Patty DeLoatche and Trish Knight, for helping me with the second FDA Revitalization Act.

With Senator Gregg's office, and for his assistance with the 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 like to thank my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, and his staff, Jennifer Swenson, Kate Anderson, and Mike Seyfert, for their incredible work on our direct-to-consumer advertising.

I also thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, and his staffer, Mike Woody, for his hard work on the issue.

I thank Meghan Hauck, who is with Senator McConnell, for her great assistance throughout the process and her tireless hours.

I thank Isaac Edwards, Amanda Makki, Tyler Thompson, Jennifer Claypool, and Mary-Sumpter Johnson.

Finally, there is a group of people without whom none of this would have happened. They work behind the scenes and make the rest of us look good. I am talking about the dedicated folks at legislative counsel, Stacy Kern-Scheerer, Bill Baird, Amy Gaynor, and the rest of the legislative counsel team. They have drafted forever on this, and redrafted, helped make this concept a reality. They did it with class, grace, patience, kindness, and I cannot thank them enough.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I always appreciate his ability to find charts and give excellent explanations. We both have degrees from the George Washington University. My speech will not be nearly as adequate as his because I just have an undergraduate degree, whereas he has a graduate degree. I am sure that is where they covered the chartmaking. I usually don't use very many charts.

I don't think the ones the Senator has have quite the spin on them that I prefer. That is what we do during this process of the budget. I am always fascinated with the budget process anyway because the President sends us a bunch of suggestions on how we ought to spend money. I know the people back in Wyoming think that is the way it is all going to come out.

In Wyoming, we have just one process, and it is called the budget process. It is really the appropriations process. When the budget is done, balanced, and the money is spent, they think that is the point we are at right now instead of just suggestions from the President. We all know that Senators are going to change, and we are the ones in charge of making those changes. They really don't understand that the federal budget process puts in place some constraints on spending, some areas of spending, and some suggestions on spending that the Appropriations Committee may or may not pay any attention to anyway. But discipline can come from this part of the process.

I commend everybody on the Budget Committee for all the diligence they put in to covering a variety of issues. There is some good debate we have over issues, where we are, where things were, and where things are going.

I do note when the President came into office, he had no idea that September 11 was going to happen or that Katrina was going to happen. Both of those events put major dents in the budget.

There was also a little recession that was happening about the time he took office, which is one of the reasons there is a dip in revenue. We tried to figure out how to reverse that dip in revenue. If we have more revenue, unfortunately, we do more spending. It really is spending that is the problem.

It would be fascinating to see how the Democratic side of the aisle deals with that situation. I have noticed quite a change in rhetoric. People at one time were talking about No Child Left Behind, how it had a tin-cup budget. I hear those same people now saying: Yes, No Child Left Behind has to have a few targeted resources to make a difference. That is quite a bit different wording, and when you are in charge of spending it, it hits a little bit different than when you are on the criticism side of the spending. I am sure those in charge will appreciate that as time goes by.

I wish to address the way the Democrats balance the budget, though. This budget, as it is showing coming down to a more balanced position and even a little faster than what the President showed, does that because of the way the taxes are handled.

Without dealing with taxes at all, taxes for Americans will go up. There needs to be an extension of certain tax provisions or taxes will go up. When taxes go up, will that increase revenue? I don't think so. That is one of the problems with which we have to deal with.

We found that with the tax cuts, revenue has gone up, and it has gone up in excess of what was projected. That means the American people are excited over the ability to spend their own money for what they want to spend it on, and the spending of their money also results in additional taxes.

I have a chart that shows the projections--they are in blue--and the actual revenue. The growth in revenue is in red. In 2004, they projected a 2-percent increase and came in at 5.5 percent; 2005, 9.4 percent, came in at 14.6 percent; 2006, 7.3 percent, came in at 11.7 percent; 2007, the projection is 5.2 percent; to date it is 11.3 percent.

I am sure somebody else has mentioned this article earlier today, but the Wall Street Journal has an editorial titled ``April Revenue Shower.'' It says:

Here's the ``surge'' you aren't reading about: the

continuing flood of tax revenue into the Federal Treasury.

Tax receipts for April were $70 billion above the same month

in 2006, and April 24 marked the single biggest day of tax

collections in U.S. history, at $48.7 billion, according to

the latest Treasury report.

It goes on and explains that the IRS did process more returns than usual this year. Does that mean more people are paying taxes? Let me put up another chart. The tax cuts also resulted in additional jobs. The employment expanded for 44 consecutive months, generating 7.8 million jobs. People who have jobs pay taxes. More returns, more people working. I think that is one of our goals. We would like to have more people working, and we would like to have people who are working make more money. Then, of course, we would like them to keep a bigger percentage of the money they earn to spend the way they think it ought to be spent.

I mentioned there is more money coming in than what we had expected, than what was projected. That does affect the deficit. The more money we get beyond what was expected is a reduction in deficit, unless we spend it.

There are more ways of figuring out how to spend money around here than there are ways to save money. The President has had a number of proposals for different programs that have been evaluated. There is a process by which we do expect different programs and agencies to set their own goals, and then to report how they did on their own goals. The White House followed up on that process to see how they did on the report and how they did on their own goals and found 160 programs that were not doing what they said they would do. That is according to their own goals. He asked us to eliminate those programs.

We kind of did four. Now ``kind of did'' means they are still in existence, and they are flat lined. It doesn't mean we eliminated what was being spent on them because every program in the Federal Government has a constituency. Every time, even in the President's suggested budget, that he shows cutting an agency, all of us in this body have dozens of people come to our office to show how important that program is to them personally. A lot of them are the ones who work in that program. They have a job in that program, and if the program disappeared, they would have to get a job somewhere else. So they are definitely involved in the program and concerned with the program and feel the need to sell the program.

I have had experience with some of those programs in Wyoming. When the President says in his budget he is going to cut a program, they gang up on us at home, too. One of the programs dealt with children's preschool education. The moms and the kids showed up, and they visited with me a little bit. I asked them what they would be losing if the program went away. The answer was their daytime babysitting service.

The program in question was designed for an hour or two a week in conjunction with the parent, not with the parent absent from the program. It is a little bit of instruction on parenting education, as well as child education, preschool education. This is how the goals get a little skewed. They serve a purpose; it just doesn't happen to be the purpose we are funding. Probably the other purpose could be funded with a lot less money than with the requirements we have for education.

It is the spending that gets us into problems. The way we are going to balance the budget under the Democratic budget proposal, of course, is to allow decreases we have had in effect because they have a limited amount of time in place. It allows them to go up. For instance, there will be an increase in taxes of 33 percent for families earning less than $15,000. It cuts the child tax

credit in half to $500. It cuts the standard deduction by $1,700 for married couples. It puts that marriage penalty back into effect.

For a family of four with $50,000 in earnings, the tax bill for a family of four with $50,000 in earnings would see their taxes go up 132 percent to $3,675 in 2011 if the President's tax relief is not made permanent. Those taxes will reduce take-home pay by more than 6 percent.

Let's talk about a single parent with two children and about $30,000 in earnings. The tax bill for a single parent with two children and $30,000 in earnings will see their taxes go up by 67 percent in 2011 if the President's tax relief is not made permanent. Those taxes will reduce take-home pay by more than 4 percent.

So a family of four with $50,000 in earnings, their take-home pay is reduced by 6 percent. A single parent with two children with $30,000 in earnings, their take-home pay will be reduced by more than 4 percent.

What about the average family? What are they going to forego if the current tax policy is not extended? Some of the tax cuts have not been extended to 2011.

I am also distressed with the way the scoring happens on taxes versus spending because there is a lot of assumption built into the process. If they were corporate assumptions, the directors of the corporation would be in a lot of trouble.

For the average family under the current tax policy, if it is not extended, they might have to forego $3,347. That could be spent on groceries, or a year's worth of home heating oil and electricity. It would be $2,927 or almost 2 years of gasoline for two cars, $3,196, and that was before last week's increases, and, yes, we need to be concerned about that issue. There are some policies that we can do that will make a difference in that situation.

It will also mean more than a year's worth of health spending, which is $2,574 for the average family. Again, there needs to be some things done in the health area. Most of those cost money and those will add to the deficit too.

So it will be interesting to see how everyone gets around to balancing the budget in whatever number of years we talk about because all the spending happens in the next year. We are working on the 2008 spending right now, but we are spending the 2007 budget that went into effect last October and extends until this October. So there are some timelines that get into this that make it a little confusing.

It is wrong to balance the budget by increasing taxes on middle America, who is feeling the squeeze. The burden is placed onto low- income people. So I hope we will not balance the budget by eliminating the tax relief that has been put in place by the Republicans, which increased the number of jobs and brought the revenues back up.

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