Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act with my colleague, Senator Kennedy.

This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and make important improvements to the Head Start Act and help ensure that today's children receiving services by this important program will be better prepared for success in the future. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. That is why the Head Start program is so important. Head Start provides early education for thousands of children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere.

The Head Start program is important generally, but there is some room for improvement. Earlier this year the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on the administration of the Head Start program, and found that a number of changes might help improve the performance of the program overall.

The first change required by this program would be providing for all Head Start grantees found to have a deficiency to recompete the next time the program's grant is up for renewal. The bill would also require grantees to recompete if they have not resolved issues of noncompliance within 120 days, or a longer time specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, which is in the best interest of our children.

The bill would also shorten the timeline for programs to be terminated. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe, or improperly using Federal funds. In these cases, the Administration has acted to terminate these programs. Unfortunately, under the law, Head Start grantees have been able to appeal these rulings. This process can be lengthy, some examples exceed 600 days, or almost two years, before a final ruling is made. In order to address this issue, and put the health and education of children first, the legislation we introduce today would limit the time available for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants.

A third improvement is to clarify the role of the governing body and policy councils in individual Head Start programs. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned to either the policy council or the governing body, or in many instances, were assigned equally to both. In order to clarify the shared governance model, the bill we introduce today would clarify the responsibilities of the governing body and the policy council for each Head Start grantee. We believe this will lead to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best way they can.

I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senator Kennedy, for their help in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act with my colleague, Senator Kennedy.

This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and make important improvements to the Head Start Act and help ensure that today's children receiving services by this important program will be better prepared for success in the future. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. That is why the Head Start program is so important. Head Start provides early education for thousands of children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere.

The Head Start program is important generally, but there is some room for improvement. Earlier this year the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on the administration of the Head Start program, and found that a number of changes might help improve the performance of the program overall.

The first change required by this program would be providing for all Head Start grantees found to have a deficiency to recompete the next time the program's grant is up for renewal. The bill would also require grantees to recompete if they have not resolved issues of noncompliance within 120 days, or a longer time specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, which is in the best interest of our children.

The bill would also shorten the timeline for programs to be terminated. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe, or improperly using Federal funds. In these cases, the Administration has acted to terminate these programs. Unfortunately, under the law, Head Start grantees have been able to appeal these rulings. This process can be lengthy, some examples exceed 600 days, or almost two years, before a final ruling is made. In order to address this issue, and put the health and education of children first, the legislation we introduce today would limit the time available for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants.

A third improvement is to clarify the role of the governing body and policy councils in individual Head Start programs. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned to either the policy council or the governing body, or in many instances, were assigned equally to both. In order to clarify the shared governance model, the bill we introduce today would clarify the responsibilities of the governing body and the policy council for each Head Start grantee. We believe this will lead to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best way they can.

I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senator Kennedy, for their help in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of Natasha Olsonawski, a teacher at Laramie High School in Laramie, WY, along with Traci Gardner and Cassandra Shotkoski, both Laramie High School seniors graduating this month. All three participated in the Capitol Hill Challenge, a nationwide stock market game to test participants' knowledge of our financial markets and ability to save and invest wisely. I am proud to say that the team from Laramie High School finished seventh in this national competition, and first among Western states.

Under the direction of Mrs. Olsonawski, Traci and Cassandra studied financial statements and newspaper articles to create a winning investment strategy. More importantly, they gained valuable experience about personal finance that will be useful throughout their lives. As an accountant, I understand the importance of knowing how to balance a checkbook, establish a good credit record, and achieve a secure financial future. It is encouraging to know that our nation's young people are learning these skills too, and using them in their daily lives.

I congratulate the team from Laramie for their hard work. I also wish Traci and Cassandra good luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA), together with the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which we passed earlier this year, and the Higher Education Act, which we will consider in the next few months, will provide the important resources that are needed to adequately prepare our workforce with the skills that are necessary for jobs and careers in high wage and high skilled occupations.

We are facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete in the global economy. As we heard from the witnesses who testified at a hearing held on April 14, 2005, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, we have too few workers with too few skills. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining.

Sixty percent of tomorrow's jobs will require skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. About half of our current workforce does not have a postsecondary education degree or credential, when all projections are that job growth over the next decade will be in jobs that require some postsecondary education or training.

Technology is demanding that everyone continue to learn and gain skills. In January of this year the labor force participation rate for individuals over the age of 16 who are willing and able to work was 68.8 percent, the lowest in over 15 years, as more Americans conclude that they cannot meet the skill demands of today's workplace and choose to no longer participate in the workforce.

The legislation I am introducing today helps meet these challenges. It is the result of a bipartisan process that began in the 108th Congress. It gives States and local areas the flexibility to provide training for jobs in high skill, high wage, and high demand occupations. It strengthens connections with the private sector, postsecondary education and training, and economic development systems to prepare the 21st century workforce. It improves the existing structure of one-stops to ensure an effective response to the changing needs of employers and workers in a new economy. It includes a new focus on entrepreneurial skills and micro-enterprises, addresses unique needs of small businesses and rural areas, and encourages collaboration locally and regionally with economic development and education.

This legislation also amends the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. These amendments encourage coordination with K-12 schools, postsecondary education and the workforce system so that individuals with barriers to workforce participation will have an opportunity to gain the literacy, language or core skills they will need to enter and advance in the workplace.

I hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce the results that are needed as we move this bill through the Senate and into Conference. This legislation is critical to meeting the workforce challenges of the 21st century. It sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and employers remain competitive and closing the skills gap that places America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.

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

Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA), together with the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, which we passed earlier this year, and the Higher Education Act, which we will consider in the next few months, will provide the important resources that are needed to adequately prepare our workforce with the skills that are necessary for jobs and careers in high wage and high skilled occupations.

We are facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete in the global economy. As we heard from the witnesses who testified at a hearing held on April 14, 2005, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, we have too few workers with too few skills. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining.

Sixty percent of tomorrow's jobs will require skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. About half of our current workforce does not have a postsecondary education degree or credential, when all projections are that job growth over the next decade will be in jobs that require some postsecondary education or training.

Technology is demanding that everyone continue to learn and gain skills. In January of this year the labor force participation rate for individuals over the age of 16 who are willing and able to work was 68.8 percent, the lowest in over 15 years, as more Americans conclude that they cannot meet the skill demands of today's workplace and choose to no longer participate in the workforce.

The legislation I am introducing today helps meet these challenges. It is the result of a bipartisan process that began in the 108th Congress. It gives States and local areas the flexibility to provide training for jobs in high skill, high wage, and high demand occupations. It strengthens connections with the private sector, postsecondary education and training, and economic development systems to prepare the 21st century workforce. It improves the existing structure of one-stops to ensure an effective response to the changing needs of employers and workers in a new economy. It includes a new focus on entrepreneurial skills and micro-enterprises, addresses unique needs of small businesses and rural areas, and encourages collaboration locally and regionally with economic development and education.

This legislation also amends the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. These amendments encourage coordination with K-12 schools, postsecondary education and the workforce system so that individuals with barriers to workforce participation will have an opportunity to gain the literacy, language or core skills they will need to enter and advance in the workplace.

I hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce the results that are needed as we move this bill through the Senate and into Conference. This legislation is critical to meeting the workforce challenges of the 21st century. It sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and employers remain competitive and closing the skills gap that places America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Veterans Road to Health Care Act of 2005 that I introduced with my colleagues Senator Burns and Senator Thune. This legislation would raise the travel reimbursement rate for veterans who must travel to Department of Veterans Affairs' hospitals for treatment. The current reimbursement rate is 11 cents per mile. This bill would raise that figure to match the Federal employees travel reimbursement rate which is 40.5 cents per mile.

The average price for gas in Wyoming right now is $2.20 per gallon. The current rate of 11 cents per mile barely makes a dent in the expenses incurred by veterans who have no choice but to travel by automobile for health care. I have received numerous letters from veterans in Wyoming describing how difficult it is to work into their budget the money necessary to travel between their hometown and the VA hospital. Being able to access health care is vital; veterans should not have to choose between driving to receive needed treatment and being able to afford other necessities.

In Wyoming, we have two VA Medical Centers, one in Cheyenne and one in Sheridan. Veterans have to travel to one of these facilities to be treated for health conditions and be covered by the health care plan that the government provides for them. This poses a serious problem in terms of travel expense, especially with the rise in gasoline prices. Some towns in Wyoming are over 300 miles away from the nearest VA facility. A veteran living in Riverton must drive 215 miles to the Sheridan facility or nearly 300 to the Cheyenne facility. This problem is then compounded when these facilities, which provide great service for our veterans, must refer the veterans to a larger hospital in Salt Lake City or Denver for additional treatment or procedures.

This bill addresses the health care of veterans who have special needs. It would allow veterans who have been referred to a special care center by their VA physician to be reimbursed under

the Travel Beneficiary Program for their travel to the specialized facility. This applies only to those veterans who cannot receive adequate care at their VA facility.

This legislation is important to all veterans, but it is especially significant to those veterans who live in rural states, like my home State of Wyoming. Rural States are less populated; there is greater distance between towns and far fewer options for transportation. Wyoming has miles and miles of miles and miles. Cars are the main mode of transportation and many times the only option.

It is our duty to compensate our servicemen and women for the sacrifices that they made defending the freedoms of this country. With our current recruitment and retention problems in the military, it is our Nation's responsibility to give veterans the kind of access to healthcare they have earned through their service to our country. The rising cost of gasoline should not be a factor for veterans to ignore their health concerns because they cannot afford to travel to the nearest veterans' clinic. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2006 budget resolution conference agreement. I would like to begin my statement by complimenting my colleague from New Hampshire, Chairman Gregg, for his hard work and bringing this conference agreement to the floor. We need this budget resolution to maintain fiscal discipline and control spending. It establishes spending guidelines, and procedural hurdles for the floor when we fail to live by these guidelines. I commend Chairman Gregg today on his first resolution as chairman.

The budget process forces Congress to contemplate legislative and spending priorities each year. Fiscal year 2006 is especially challenging because I think most of us agree that deficit reduction must be a top priority. Under this resolution, we will consider a reconciliation bill later this year that will cut mandatory spending by $34.7 billion over 5 years. This will mark the 20th time that reconciliation has been used since 1980.

I have a long track record in support of deficit reduction, and I am committed to helping President Bush and Chairman Gregg achieve this goal. And $13.6 billion of the reconciled savings will come from programs that I oversee in my role as chairman of the HELP Committee. When we passed the budget out of the Senate, it contained $8.5 billion in reconciled savings. The HELP Committee's instruction increased 60 percent in the conference process. Let me point out that the HELP Committee will be responsible for producing nearly 40 percent of the total cuts of mandatory spending.

For the past month, I have been working with the administration and the Budget Committee to identify a savings number that the HELP Committee could realistically produce, without compromising the effectiveness of the programs under the committee's jurisdiction. Though the conference report exceeds my initial agreement of $8.5 billion in savings with Chairman Gregg, I understand that Congress is a bicameral institution--and that compromise is required to reach a final agreement. This conference agreement assumes reconciled savings of $7 billion on higher education reforms, and $6.6 billion in savings from Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation premium increases.

I want to assure my colleagues that I will do my best to produce a reconciliation bill that delivers on this very heavy lift--and I want to reiterate, this budget imposes a very heavy lift on the HELP Committee. As chairman of the HELP Committee, I am committed to reviewing and strengthening programs under HELP's jurisdiction to ensure they are cost effective, not duplicative, and that accountability is enforced in order to find responsible savings to reduce our deficit.

That being said, I will not report any legislation from the committee that is either detrimental to the government programs, or their constituencies under my jurisdiction or that I feel compromises the financial health of private industry--even if that means falling short of reaching the $13.6 billion reconciliation instruction. I will move the committee toward the end zone, but my first duty as chairman is to ``do no harm,'' even if that means possibly falling a few yards short on deficit reduction targets.

The two issues that the reconciliation process will require the committee to immediately address are higher education reauthorization and pension reform. During the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the HELP Committee will need to find $7 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. My staff has already begun working with the Congressional Budget Office to identify policy options to reach this goal.

We are working to identify additional savings by reforming student loan programs, so that these funds could be used to provide more assistance to enhance low and middle income learners' access to higher education. This is the cornerstone of my ``lifelong learning'' vision for the higher education reauthorization bill. The availability of quality education is critical for America's long-term competitiveness in the global economy. Congress has an important opportunity to meet these challenges head on with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

The conference agreement also proposes $6.6 billion in reconciled savings associated with changes to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. I want to inform my colleagues that this is a 230 percent increase from the $2 billion in reconciled savings agreed to under the Senate-passed Resolution. Right now the PBGC has a deficit of $23 billion, and I agree with the administration and Chairman Gregg that reforms are needed to shore up its solvency. Pension reform falls under the jurisdiction of both the HELP and Finance Committees--and Chairman Grassley and I are committed to restoring the financial stability of the defined benefit pension system. The solvency of the PBGC is a critical component of these reforms.

I am pleased that conferees agreed to $70 bil1ion in reconciled tax cuts, and that tax relief remains a priority for congressional Republicans and the administration. I understand that some members wanted a larger tax cut, but this figure will allow Congress to keep in place tax relief that has produced almost 2 years of consecutive job gains. We need to keep the trend going.

The conference agreement will allow the Finance Committee to extend key provisions like the reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, the increase in expensing for small business under Section 179 and the ability of individuals in states without income taxes to deduct their local and State sales tax from their Federal income tax liability.

The resolution also demonstrates a commitment to energy development in Wyoming and in the entire United States. It is the first step towards developing a comprehensive energy policy in the 109th Congress. The energy reserve fund and the reconciliation instructions for an energy tax incentives package will lay the footwork for a policy that will help our Nation meet its energy needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Specifically, I would like to reinforce my support for recognizing the importance of developing clean coal technologies, something that is vital for the economy of Wyoming. I look forward to working so that these technologies receive the funding necessary to become viable.

Also important to the coal miners in my State is an instruction to the Judiciary Committee to reconcile mandatory savings that could presumably be used to increase certain fees on consumers of explosives. Coal companies and other mining entities are large purchasers of these commercial explosives, and I urge the Judiciary Committee to avoid increasing fees on them, as it would hit my State disproportionately hard at a time when no one wants to see higher energy costs.

I again thank and congratulate Chairman Gregg and his staff for their leadership on this resolution.

I also thank Majority Leader Frist and his staff for their help in moving this important conference agreement across the finish line.

Finally, I commend my fine staff who worked tirelessly on the resolution--Amy Angelier, Kara Calvert, Diann Howland, David Thompson, Beth Buehlmann, and my HELP Committee Staff Director, Katherine McGuire.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I would like to clarify a point with the chairman of the Budget Committee about the timing of substantive legislation and the effect on my Committee's instructions in the FY 2006 Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 95. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is instructed in this resolution to report $13.6 billion in reconciled savings by September 16. It is contemplated that a significant portion of those savings will come from reforms to the insurance program of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. While important, legislation producing the anticipated savings is only a part of broader pension reforms that must be enacted this year in order to stabilize the defined benefit system in this country. As the chairman knows, reconciliation is privileged legislation which is narrow in scope. Many provisions that are essential to comprehensive pension reform may not be permitted in reconciliation. Therefore, it may be necessary to act outside of the reconciliation process in order to enact comprehensive pension reform. My question to the chairman is, if we pass legislation that sets the stage for real savings to occur in reconciliation, will you recognize those efforts in scoring our committee's response to the reconciliation instruction?

I thank the Senator.

medicaid commission

Mr. President, whenever there is a crisis the media has always served to focus the nation's attention on the problem and who has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's property and their livelihood.

Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to normalcy.

We have all seen the pictures of the devastating tornadoes or other natural disasters that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched. Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe weather. Tornadoes don't last a long time, but they leave a path of devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever changed.

Even as we consider the devastation of tornadoes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters, there are those in my state who have seen their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and federal regulation, but they haven't been so visible to us because we haven't seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more difficult to track.

Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods-- thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.

Right now as I speak to you on the floor of the Senate, if you are a rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.

The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets.

So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.

If you haven't heard about the problem, I must point out that our ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we haven't fully focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a Town Meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from my constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in Wyoming, and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception, they are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years.

I could bring a stack of letters to the Floor that come from people all across my State about the problems they face. But, in the interests of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try to deal with captive supply.

A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was ``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He then added, ``until the existing laws are enforced in this area of illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very little consequence.''

So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.

The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs.

But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies.

The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control approximately 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that haven't aligned with specific packers.

We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor during the Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee on the Farm Bill. However, the problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock.

Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or

more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.

As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the situation if you aren't familiar with the cattle market. Most of us haven't signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a market structured like the current livestock market.

It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September. As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that time. It turns out that other people don't really buy homes from each other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal with one of these companies.

One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have just been practically forced to sign a contract that doesn't specify how much you will receive for your house.

That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away from the market. All the homes selling in September that aren't contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your home for $2,000 below average.

As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.

Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b):

``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . to: (a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or (b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect''

Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It doesn't just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult for them to speed.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements.

In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.

My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract.

Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business.

My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field.

Mr. President, whenever there is a crisis the media has always served to focus the nation's attention on the problem and who has been affected by it. Then it has been up to us, in the Congress, to review the problem and determine whether or not there was anything we could do to ease the suffering and repair the damage to someone's property and their livelihood.

Most of the time, when the media spots a crisis it is of such a magnitude that the pictures we see of the suffering are devastating and powerful. The images clearly cry out to us to take action and do what we can to restore, as much as possible, the lives of these people to normalcy.

We have all seen the pictures of the devastating tornadoes or other natural disasters that have wreaked havoc wherever they have touched. Story after story has appeared in print and on television showing property destroyed, places of business torn in pieces, jobs in jeopardy and lives forever changed by the fury of a few moments of severe weather. Tornadoes don't last a long time, but they leave a path of devastation in their wake that leaves those affected by it forever changed.

Even as we consider the devastation of tornadoes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters, there are those in my state who have seen their livelihoods drastically affected by weather and federal regulation, but they haven't been so visible to us because we haven't seen their faces on the nightly news or read their stories in the national newspapers. That is because not everyone who has seen their livelihood so drastically affected can be portrayed with quite the same kind of powerful images that depict those who have been touched by the ravages of severe weather patterns. Some problems that destroy livelihoods and weaken industries are far more subtle and more difficult to track.

Instead of being destroyed by a single blow, the industry I am referring to is being slowly put to death by the cruelest of methods-- thousands of small cuts brought on by the lethal combination of several years of drought, ambiguous regulations that are too easily taken advantage of and the lax enforcement of existing law which has allowed for the manipulation of the system to one group's advantage.

Right now as I speak to you on the floor of the Senate, if you are a rancher in the West, you have two major problems affecting your ability to earn a living and provide for your family. The first is the continuing drought which has made it so difficult for ranchers to tend their cattle and provide them with good, affordable grazing.

The second is a regulatory nightmare that has held livestock producers captive by the chains of unfair and manipulative contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed, and which brings me to the floor today as I offer legislation to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets.

So, what is this regulation that is destroying the health of our family ranchers? It's a practice called ``captive supply,'' a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.

If you haven't heard about the problem, I must point out that our ranchers have tried to bring it to our attention, but we haven't fully focused on their needs. Whenever I travel to Wyoming, or hold a Town Meeting, or go over the week's mail that I receive from my constituents, I hear the cries for help from our ranchers in Wyoming, and throughout the West. One by one, and without exception, they are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years.

I could bring a stack of letters to the Floor that come from people all across my State about the problems they face. But, in the interests of time, I will read a small excerpt from one that will give you an idea of how bad things are in the ranching industry as our ranchers try to deal with captive supply.

A letter I received from a rancher in Lingle said that the issue of captive supply needed to be reviewed and addressed because it was ``slowly but surely putting small farmers/feeders out of business.'' He then added, ``until the existing laws are enforced in this area of illegal activities, all other plans or laws will be of very little consequence.''

So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock for their slaughterlines.

The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs.

But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies.

The packing industry is highly concentrated. Four companies control approximately 80 percent of U.S. fed cattle slaughter. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that haven't aligned with specific packers.

We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor during the Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee on the Farm Bill. However, the problems caused by captive supplies are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock.

Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or

more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.

As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

I realize it may be difficult to grasp the seriousness of the situation if you aren't familiar with the cattle market. Most of us haven't signed a contract to sell a load of livestock, but many of us have sold a house. To illustrate the seriousness of the problem, let's explore how you would sell a house using a formula-priced contract in a market structured like the current livestock market.

It is May, and you know you will be selling your home in September. As a wise seller, you want to find a buyer for your home before that time. It turns out that other people don't really buy homes from each other anymore. In fact, four main companies have taken over 80 percent of all real estate transactions. You really have no choice but to deal with one of these companies.

One of them offers you a contract, stating you will receive $10,000 over the average price of what other, similar homes are selling for in your area in September. To manage your risk and ensure a buyer, you have just been practically forced to sign a contract that doesn't specify how much you will receive for your house.

That tingle of fear in the pit of your stomach becomes full-fledged panic when you close the deal in September. You see, the four real estate companies have been planning ahead. They decide to pull away from the market. All the homes selling in September that aren't contracted to the companies flood the market and the price for homes in your area drops $12,000. By trying to manage your risk, you sold your home for $2,000 below average.

As a homeowner, you would be outraged, wouldn't you? You would want to know why anyone had the ability to legally take advantage of you. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.

Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b):

``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . to: (a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or (b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect''

Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. Since the Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming, today I propose that the Senate take action.

Most laws require enforcement. They are like speed limits on a country road. No one pays the sign any attention unless the driver is sharing the road with an agent of the law who will enforce it like a police car. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It doesn't just warn cars to go slower, it makes it much more difficult for them to speed.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed, base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements.

In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.

My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It doesn't limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract.

Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete in an honest game that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business.

My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field.

Mr. President, on Monday, April 25, I introduced a bill, S. 894, with Senator Dorgan that will make a small change in Cuba policy. It deals only with travel provisions to Cuba.

I have been watching Cuba since the 1960s. I went to college at George Washington University and was there at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba through the years and I am reminded of something my dad used to say: If you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to wind up getting what you already got.

That is kind of been the situation with Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for 40 years--over 40 years--and it has not worked. So I am suggesting a change to get a few more people in there to increase conversation for people that understand the way the United States works and the way Cuba works and how they ought to drift more rapidly towards where we are.

Castro's cruelty to his own people has tempted us to tighten the already strong restrictions on the relations between our two countries, and we did. We need to be successful in bringing about a better way of life for the Cuban people.

When we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to their families in Cuba, and end the people to people exchanges, and stop the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we are not hurting the Cuban Government, we are hurting the Cuban people. We are diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries.

If we allow more and freer travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we take away Castro's ability to blame the hardships of the Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the better we try to make things for the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by Fidel Castro.

As I mentioned before, it seems foolish to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. That is what we are doing in Cuba. We are continuing to exert pressure from our side and, as we do, we are giving Castro a scapegoat to blame for the poor living conditions in his country in the process. It is time for a different policy, one that goes further than embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goals in that country.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is very straightforward. It states that the President shall not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or transactions incident to such travel.

In 1958 the Supreme Court affirmed our constitutional right to travel, but the U.S. Government then prohibited Americans from spending money in Cuba. We simply said, OK, you have a right to travel, but try traveling without spending a dime.

One of the reasons I became involved in this issue is because a Cuban-American from Jackson, WY, had been in Cuba visiting his family, doing his one

visit a year. As he left and was on the plane coming back to Wyoming, one of his parents died. He could not go back there for a year. Under the recent changes, he now would be unable to go back for 3 years. This is not a good situation for any family.

I must ask my colleagues why we are continuing to support a policy that was basically implemented 40 years ago. Why are we supporting a policy that has had little effect on the government we oppose? Why don't we improve our policy so that it will improve conditions for the Cuban people and their image of the United States?

The bill we are introducing makes real change in our policy toward Cuba that will lead to real change for the people of Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their plight than for them to hear it from their friends, and extended family from the United States. Or let them hear it from the American people who will go there. The people of this country are our best ambassadors and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a Nation are all about. One thing we should not do is to play into Castro's hands by continuing to enact stricter and more stringent regulations and create a situation where the United States is easy to blame for the problems in Cuba.

Unilateral sanctions will not improve human rights for Cuban citizens. The rest of the world isn't doing what we are doing. They are being supplied by the rest of the world for everything that they need. Open dialogue and exchange of ideas and commerce can move a country toward democracy.

What better way to share the rewards of democracy than through people to people exchanges. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas. Ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change in any nation.

Some may ask why we want to increase dialogue right now, why open the door to Cuba when Castro behaves so poorly. No one is denying that the actions of Castro and his government are deplorable, as is his refusal to provide basic human rights to his people. But if you truly believe that Castro is dictator with no good intentions, how can you say we should wait for him to behave before we engage. He controls all the media in Cuba. The entire message that is coming out unless we have people interacting is his message. Keeping the door closed and hollering at Castro on the other side does nothing. Let's do something, let's open the door and talk to the Cuban people.

I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at S. 894 and join me in this effort.

Mr. President, may I enquire of the Senator from Michigan what his amendment seeks to accomplish?

It is my understanding that the equity the Department of Labor has acquired is attributable to Federal grants extended to the State and used for leasehold improvements over the last 50 years. These grants were provided under the auspices of Federal jobs programs including job training and unemployment compensation. Before consenting to this amendment, I seek assurance that the portion of the sale proceeds in question be used solely for job training purposes by the State of Michigan.

With that assurance, I do not object to this amendment. I thank the Senator from Michigan for addressing my concerns.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act, offered as an amendment by Senator Mikulski to the Supplemental Appropriations Act.

As many of my colleagues have stated, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It is a temporary fix and does not reward illegal workers. It basically allows those workers who have followed the rules and returned home at the end of their season to come back to work in the United States and not count against the H-2B visa cap.

As the situation stands right now, the many businesses across our Nation that use the visas are limited by how many can be approved each year. The demand of the visas is high and the Department of Labor has certified that there are positions that cannot be filled locally. With the cap being for the entire fiscal year, those businesses with their season in the fall and winter have a better chance of getting the employees they need. In Wyoming, we have strong summer and winter seasons. Our winter businesses have been able to get their workers and yet see the impact of not having enough employees in the summer.

The H-2B visas are used in Wyoming by small businesses in a variety of areas. I have heard from hotels, restaurants, touring companies, hunting companies, art and framing stores, and others. Many of these people depend on their return workers to keep their businesses going. While some may consider this unskilled labor, a return worker who knows the job and knows the customers is invaluable for a small business.

This amendment is about helping our small and seasonal businesses survive another year--to give them a chance to stay in business until the Senate can fully debate needed changes in immigration reform. It does not provide amnesty or benefit those who have broken our laws.

This type of visa actually puts such a high level of responsibility on the employers that we should consider putting some of these requirements on other types of visas. Under Federal law, the employer must certify that they cannot hire locally, the employer must guarantee wages, and the employer accepts responsibility for the worker. The amendment we are considering today keeps that built-in protection. It also increases fraud protection to help us ensure that those who have the visa applications approved are those who need the employees.

The support we have already heard for this amendment is evidence of the wide impact of the H-2B visa program. Businesses from mountain States and coastal States are in need of help. We have an opportunity to take positive action in support of the small businesses that drive our economy. I encourage all my colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment.

Amendment No. 555

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 3 p.m. on Monday, the Senate begin consideration of Calendar No. 67, H.R. 1268, the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 30, John Bellinger, to be Legal Advisor to the Department of State.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.