Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, Amendment 3183, proposed by my colleague from Oregon.

I have always believed that we should leave as many decisions as possible to the States to decide. Only on rare occasions, and with great and good cause should the Federal Government try to step in and legislate what the States should do. When we try to legislate ``one size fits all'' solutions to the problems facing the States more often than not we create more problems than we solve.

Before we act on this amendment, we should ask ourselves if this new law that we would create would reduce crime. After all, that should be our primary reason for passing new criminal laws. In this case, although I know it is a well meaning effort to address a serious problem, it won't prevent crime, it will only make a statement about it. That's one of the problems with a Federal hate crime bill. If it passes, we may think we have taken care of the problem. Unfortunately, although it may make us feel good, a law like this will do little to slow down or stop the cycle of violence in our cities and towns.

Another problem with the hate crime bill is its definition of hate crimes. All of the predicate offenses that would qualify as hate crimes are already illegal and they are already being prosecuted under traditional categories of crimes. In other words, the States are already aware of the problem and using existing law to address it. In those cases where additional legislation is needed, the States are taking the lead and deciding the matter for themselves. They don't need or want us to step in and tell them what they should do.

In addition, if we pass this amendment Federal agents and prosecutors will be put in a position in which they will be second guessing the efforts of local officials and substituting their own judgment or political motivations for the judgment of local law enforcement personnel who are dealing with the problem of hate crimes at the scene where they are committed.

The Smith amendment could essentially federalize most crimes. Such an explosion in Federal jurisdiction would require a tremendous expansion in the size and scope of Federal law enforcement and Federal prosecutors at a time when the States have the capability of prosecuting these crimes themselves--and they are doing it. Federal prosecutors already have the tools at their disposal to address issues like hate crimes--they just have to make better use of them.

All crimes are in some way hate crimes. By enacting hate crime legislation we ironically serve the principle of inequality that this type of legislation seeks to fight against. Violent crimes are horrific and should be punished equally, regardless of the particular ``bias'' of the perpetrator. A vicious murder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law--no matter who the victim is. The value of an individual's life should not depend on their heritage, ethnicity or lifestyle. If life truly is a sacred gift we should treat every life with the same dignity and respect we all deserve.

To try to read someone's mind, or guess what their real motivation was for committing a crime will never be possible. Crimes aren't thoughts, they're actions, and actions which are crimes need to be addressed as soon as they are committed. To try to gauge the seriousness of a crime based on someone's thoughts is to put an additional burden on law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, not to mention the judge and jury who will have to work on and ultimately decide the

case. Clearly, putting a greater value on some lives inherently devalues others, and it goes against a basic principle of our legal foundation which is that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Justice is swifter when the accused are tried on the basis of what they did without adding some speculation on the thoughts they might have had while committing the crime.

We have State and Federal laws to punish murder, assault, battery, and a long list of other crimes. If these laws are not strong enough then we should make them stronger. We should also be making our feelings known to our neighbors, to our children, in our papers and through our broadcast media that hatred in any form is wrong. We should not, however, try to make statements with laws that weaken State authority or the rights granted to individuals in the Constitution.

Our society must continue to participate in a dialogue on the issues of racism, bigotry, and hate. We must pray for direction and guidance and work together to ensure that we avoid the kind of hate that may give rise to such crimes in the first place. Hatred in any form is destructive to the very foundation upon which our society is built.

If we are to truly address the problem of hate crimes, we must come together as one, our families, our spiritual and church leaders, our local and community leaders, and the citizens of our communities to foster and reinforce in our children and all our citizens the importance of treating each other as we would wish to be treated. It is such a simple lesson--it is never permissible to hurt another. Somehow, some of our children never learned it. Recent and past events make it clear that it is a lesson about which every child must be taught, and every adult constantly reminded.

I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up an amendment numbered 3295.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation on this amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase 10 aircraft that were designed and built to fight fires.

The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management need to develop a new fleet of aircraft for aerial firefighting in order to free up current military aircraft to fly military missions.

My amendment takes the first step to create a new fleet of aircraft specifically designed for aerial firefighting. Once the new fleet is in place all dedicated military aircraft will be freed up and allowed to be dedicated, once again, for military missions.

On May 10, 2004, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior terminated the contract for 33 large airtankers used for aerial fire fighting because of ``concerns over the airworthiness of the aircraft and public safety.'' The large, fixed-wing airtankers were used in wildland firefighting primarily for initial attack and structure protection support.

The old fleet was made up of aging, former military aircraft that were purchased at bargain basement prices from the surplus military market. They were the worst of the worst and required extensive repairs and refurbishing before they were ready for aerial firefighting.

The USFS has planned to replace the 33 air tankers with 8 military C130s that will be dedicated during the fire session to fly support for domestic fire fighting missions. These planes, therefore, will not be available to support necessary military missions.

The first step in relieving these planes from domestic duty, and making them available for military utilization, is to find a reasonable replacement that is safe and specifically designed for aerial fire fighting.

One example of the kind of aircraft that could be purchased is the Be-200 that would be serviced by a company in my home State of Wyoming.

It was specifically designed to operate as an air tanker and can deliver up to 6,000 gallons of water or other fire suppressants.

It is an amphibious plane that can scoop up the water on the fly.

It can mix the water with slurry in regulated amounts while in the air so it will not be required to fill up at a slurry base after every run.

And, because the water tanks were designed to fit under the cabin floor, it can also carry up to 60 firefighters and their gear as a transport plane while it is functioning as a firefighting tanker.

Our pilots put their lives on the lines to save our property and to save other lives. We owe it to them to have a modern fleet where the risks they face are significantly diminished.

We also owe it to our military to free up our military aircraft for military missions. Right now there are 8 C-130 transport aircraft that cannot be used to fly support missions in the Middle East because they have to be on hand to fight fires in the West.

We have options available to free those aircraft up and we should be developing those options as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this past weekend, the news quickly made its way across the country and around the world. Ronald Reagan, our 40th President, had died. For many of us, we received the news with a mixture of sadness together with a sense of relief that his long battle with illness was now over and he had now found peace at the end of his life.

I first met Ronald Reagan when I was president of the Wyoming Jaycees at the national convention which was held in California, and he was the Governor. I next met the President when I was mayor of Gillette, WY, and the National League of Cities held its national meeting and the President flew to California and addressed it.

Now the greatest thinkers and writers will take up their pens in an attempt to determine his place in history and his significance as one of our greatest Presidents. For those of us who observed his service as our President and admired his leadership, those questions had been long since answered. For us, his place in history was long ago determined by his place in our hearts.

Many of those who will examine his life in detail will tell a story about a man who was born without the great privileges and trappings you might expect of such a successful life. That is true, but there is so much more to the story.

Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois, the son of a traveling shoe salesman. Growing up he was strongly influenced by his mother who taught him how to read at an early age. She urged him to read good books that would encourage him to dream and set goals in his life. She knew that he could be anything he wanted to be if he was willing to work hard and expect more of himself than anyone else had any reason to expect. That, more than anything else, really determined his character and ultimately mapped his destiny.

His natural confidence and determination began to show itself during his school years and again, later, when he began his career as an actor. He was a natural leader and he took a leadership role at virtually every stage of his life. In his college days he served as student body president. In his acting days he served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. In between he worked hard and built a career as a successful actor in film and on television.

If that had been all he had done, it would have been a remarkable life. He would have earned the rags to riches label and inspired others to follow his path just by his success in Hollywood and on television. That would have been enough for just about everyone. It was not, however, enough for Ronald Reagan.

With his beloved wife, Nancy, by his side, Ronald Reagan began to pursue his dream. He wanted to make a greater impact on the world than he could by being a television and movie star, so he began to take a more active role in politics. He discovered he had a talent for that, too. After a great deal of thought and deliberation, he decided to put his vision for America to the test. He took his case to the people and began a run for Governor of California.

People thought it was an impossible dream and he could never win a State like California. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong. He put together a coalition of both Republican and Democratic voters and, when all the votes were counted, he had made it happen and he was elected Governor by almost a million votes.

Reagan then set his sights on the Presidency of the United States and, after a narrow loss to Gerald Ford, he spent the next few years traveling around the country, sharing his dream for a better United States with the people who came to hear him speak. Many doubted he could do it, but once again, he found the support he needed to win the Republican nomination. The contest for the Presidency put him up against an incumbent who talked about the serious problems facing the Nation. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, spoke with passionate certainty that working together the Nation could overcome them. When the votes were counted, Ronald Reagan had won the presidency in a landslide.

As President, Ronald Reagan proved himself to be a man of principle, someone who said what he believed and believed what he said. He had excellent communication skills, and his speeches on television were extremely effective.

When he took the oath of the office as our 40th President, he took over the reins of a country that had great problems. He had often referred to our economic woes as the ``misery index.'' There was high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment. Perhaps worst of all, the Nation seemed to have lost its confidence in its ability to dare to do great things--and succeed.

There was a lot of doubt and cynicism that any one individual could do much to change things and re-energize the Nation. Again, Ronald Reagan proved the doubters wrong. As President, his spirit of optimism, patriotism and personal pride in his country proved to be infectious. Before long, there was a new spirit in the United States, a renewed sense of pride and excitement about our Flag and our Nation that hadn't been around for a while. Ronald Reagan was just what we needed. He inspired a generation to look toward the future with hope and a renewed commitment to the principles upon which our Nation was founded. It is still alive today. It is his legacy that he left with us, his gift to the younger generations of the Nation.

During his two terms in the White House, Ronald Reagan spoke the truth, regardless of the sensitivities of those who might not want to hear it. It was over the objections of much of his staff that he challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall'' when he was in Berlin. It was against the advice of much of his staff to refer to the Soviet Union as an ``evil empire.'' For Ronald Reagan, it was simple. If it was the truth, it must be said. For him, there was good guys and bad guys in the world. If the good guys worked hard and were determined to succeed, they won. In Ronald Reagan's world, we were the good guys. And, during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, more often then not, we won.

For historians and the history books, Ronald Reagan will be remembered as the President who brought a successful end to the cold war; had a great deal to do with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and the destruction

of the Berlin Wall; and, dramatically turned the Nation's economy around. For those of us who observed his style as our President, he will also be remembered for his spirit, and his attitude of patriotic optimism, which rejuvenated the Nation when our spirit was low. He was a great leader and a great American. His words and his actions will long be remembered.

Ronald Reagan dared to do the impossible, not because it was easy but because it had to be done. The challenges he encountered in his life brought out the best in him, and the challenges we faced as a Nation under him brought out the best in all of us. His is a legacy that we will always cherish. We will miss him.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this past week has been a very memorable and inspirational and overdue time for all of us to come together as a nation and dedicate the World War II Memorial and recognize the efforts of our Nation's veterans in one of the fiercest wars in our Nation's history.

As we did, many of us took a moment to remember the events of those days and how they affected us and, more importantly, how they affected the people in our lives who played an important part in that war effort.

I had a special opportunity to remember my dad, Elmer Enzi, who served in the war, and my uncle Edward Curtis and my uncle Edmund Wally Enzi who played a part in that war.

For many of us, those days are forever etched in our minds because they had an impact on us and our families and friends that will never be erased or forgotten. But it is nothing like the memory of those who actually participated.

We have the opportunity to honor the Senators who are with us today in this great body who played a part in that war. We have mentioned them, their achievements.

I want to refer to a piece that was on Channel 1, which is an educational channel that goes to the schools every morning. They have seen these World War II events being dedicated and the people who came to those events. Each time there is one of those events, the people who come are a little bit older. They found out the kids of this country were getting kind of a false impression of who fought the war, so they put out a special piece that would be dedicated to these great men who serve in our Chamber. The title of it was: ``The Kids Who Saved the World.'' They showed the people coming to the reunions, but then they shifted back to the pictures of these people as they served. It made a much greater identification for the kids across this country that the patriots, the ones who put their lives on the line, were not much older than the kids in school watching this Channel 1.

I thank Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Fritz Hollings, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner for being those ``kids who saved the world'' and allowing us to be here in this forum today.

For us, as Americans, our World War II story begins on December 7, 1941, a date President Franklin D. Roosevelt told us would live in infamy, as Japan suddenly and deliberately attacked the United States of America.

The next day, the President reassured a fearful nation that the attack on Pearl Harbor would not stand and that all our resources would be brought to bear on ridding the world of the terrible menace that was threatening the future peace and security of the United States and Europe.

In the years that followed, the United States put forth an effort to combat evil that had never been seen before. Sixteen million served in our Armed Forces and a united America gladly did everything that could possibly be done to support the war effort back home. The United States was fully committed to the cause at hand and no price was too great, no sacrifice too burdensome, and no hardship too severe, if it meant victory overseas.

The World War II Memorial on the Mall commemorates the sacrifices of those 16 million veterans who served with pride and patriotism during World War II. It also honors and recognizes the millions more who supported the war cause back home. For without the efforts of our troops on the front lines, and the support and encouragement of family and friends back home, we would have never been successful. Thanks to all of them, we succeeded beyond our greatest expectations. This was truly a time when we knew there was no option but complete and total victory and we refused to consider any other option--regardless of the cost.

When President Roosevelt made the call for recruits it was answered in unprecedented fashion. The 16 million Americans who reported for duty made it clear that they would pay any price to defend the freedoms and liberties of our own Nation. They also committed themselves to the liberation of Europe and the preservation of liberty there and in many other parts of the world.

They were just average Americans from small towns and large, from small States and large, who were caught up in a cause greater than themselves. They soon showed themselves to be the greatest weapon ever known in the history of warfare--the American Armed Forces. They were sent to far away places with strange sounding names, as the song goes, and they probably never imagined there was anything special about them. Heroes? They probably never thought of themselves that way, but for those who read about their exploits, and for those of us who now live with the freedom that their blood, sweat and tears provided, we cannot think of them any other way.

They were young men and women, called to attempt the impossible, knowing the odds were against them, and still they tried, because they believed in our country and the principles we hold dear as a nation.

We have several World War II veterans serving with us here in the Senate, with several more serving in the House. Their commitment to country and duty which began so many years ago continues today in the Congress.

Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Fritz Hollings, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner represent in a special way all of those who served with distinction and honor during those days. They are our link with the past, a past that has made our present possible.

What they achieved, along with all those who served with them, is best seen in the words that have been posted on several Internet sites, attributed by some to Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC:

It is the soldier, not the reporter Who has given us freedom

of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of

speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us

freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us freedom

of the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves under the

flag and

Whose coffin is draped by the flag,

Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

This is the legacy our veterans have left us and it reflects the debt we owe them all. They are--and they always have been--the force that guarantees our Bill of Rights. They are--and have been--the force that stands guard around the world, vigilant and watchful, while we sleep. They are the ones for whom love of country are not just words, they are a way of life.

In the years to come, the Memorial on the Mall will serve as a constant reminder that freedom isn't free and that it comes at a great price. More than 400,000 American lives were lost in World War II and many more were wounded in battles all over the world. They will be remembered there. The memorial will also serve as a symbol of the heartfelt dedication and total commitment that was needed to put an end to the tyranny that threatened to ensnare the world around us. It was an effort that we pray will never have to be duplicated.

We take great pride in our Nation's veterans because they are our greatest American heroes. They were as one, willing to sacrifice all their tomorrows to ensure we would live in freedom today. Our way of life is their legacy, their gift to us all. God bless them all, our Nation's heroes, our Nation's veterans.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have never supported a bill that would allow for the importation of prescription drugs--until today.

I have decided to cosponsor Senator Gregg's bill to permit the carefully regulated importation of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The bill also would regulate the dispensing of medications by Internet pharmacies and strengthen the laws and regulations that protect Americans from the dangers of counterfeit drugs.

I have long opposed drug importation on the grounds that current laws, regulations, and practices are insufficient to allow for the safe opening of our currently closed drug distribution system. I have said that I could not support any plan to legalize drug importation that does not ensure that the drugs that are imported are safe, effective, and will not compromise the integrity of our Nation's prescription drug supply or our world-leading pharmaceutical research.

With that in mind, Senator Gregg's bill is the first piece of legislation I have seen that would craft an importation system with the appropriate safeguards and limitations necessary to protect the public health. Senator Gregg's bill would allow importation of FDA-approved drugs manufactured in FDA-inspected facilities only. His bill would permit the importation of drugs from Canada only, with the possibility that the FDA could approve importation from other countries in the future. His bill would also provide additional tools and resources for the FDA to use to protect American citizens from tainted or counterfeit drugs, and from scam artists selling medications on the Internet.

Senator Gregg has introduced a strong bill that addresses my concerns about the safety of drug importation and Internet pharmacies, and it's the only bill I've yet seen that I could support.

My main outstanding concern is that Senator Gregg's bill does not address the liability that sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of prescription drugs may face even under a regulated system of drug importation.

Our jurisdiction over foreign companies or individuals in the chain of drug distribution is limited at best. Irresponsible actions on their part could put responsible American companies and individuals at risk of substantial monetary liability. Without liability protection, American companies and individuals may choose not to participate in drug importation, which would defeat the purpose of enacting this legislation in the first place.

As this legislation moves in the Senate, I look forward to working with Senator Gregg, the other cosponsors of his bill, and other interested Members to address these concerns through sensible liability protections for sellers,

distributors, and manufacturers of prescription drugs.

I want to be clear on an important point: importing prescription drugs from other countries will not solve the problem of rising drug prices. Our market for prescription drugs is so large that we can not import enough lower-priced medications from other countries to make a significant impact on prices here.

There are many other ways that Congress is helping Americans afford their prescription medications. Just yesterday, for instance, the new Medicare drug discount cards went into effect. The cards offer savings of 10 to 25 percent or more off the current retail prices seniors pay, and seniors with low incomes also qualify for a $1,200 credit over the next 18 months to help pay for prescriptions.

Nevertheless, millions of Americans are still buying prescription drugs in Canada and other countries, or purchasing drugs from Internet pharmacies that operate outside the United States. Despite the fact that importing prescription drugs is against the law today, these Americans are taking their lives in their hands by going outside our closed drug distribution system and obtaining their prescription medicines from pharmacies and Internet sites that do not meet the high standards that we require domestically.

Right now, the Federal Government and State governments are looking the other way, crossing our fingers and hoping that no one gets hurt. So I am cosponsoring Senator Gregg's bill to put a strong and enforceable system in place to protect Americans against the dangers inherent in importing drugs from other countries. I also intend to work with Senator Gregg to oppose any election-year political maneuvering that would weaken the critical safety components of his legislation as we consider the bill in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and on the Senate floor.

Madam President, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric today. I want people to know exactly what it is about.

I will be opposing Senator Harkin's amendment. I will be supporting Senator Gregg's amendment. Senator Gregg's amendment will actually work us toward achieving the goal of full funding for IDEA. It is not a political statement. We have been having this debate for some time. There hasn't been the kind of progress any of us would like to have on it, but there has been steady progress. There has been more steady progress since this President and Senator Gregg have been working on this issue.

During the 8 years President Clinton was in office, the increase in part B funds was $1.4 billion. Under this President--a much shorter time--it has been $3.7 billion. That is reality versus rhetoric.

I want to make a few comments about the bill as a whole because we haven't had a chance to actually debate that. I want to point out how bipartisan the reauthorization was that came out of committee, how well people worked on it, worked on it together, resolved differences and made it possible for it to come to the floor and now to pass the floor in a relatively short time, I hope, so we hopefully can have a conference committee and work out any differences with the House and get this legislation into place.

This reauthorization is past due. I am pleased the Senate has begun consideration of S. 1248, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. There are few issues as important as the education of our Nation's youth. Making sure all children receive a good education has been a longstanding goal of this body. I am pleased the committee was able to reach unanimous support of the underlying bill, and I hope this body will act

quickly to agree to this important legislation and send it to conference.

Since Congress first began providing State grant funding for the education of disabled students in 1966, the process for ensuring every disabled student receives a free, appropriate public education has been refined and improved from one reauthorization to the next. I believe this legislation is another important step in that process.

While there are many improvements to the law in this legislation, I want to highlight four changes which I feel are most important to my home State of Wyoming.

First, there is an increased emphasis on early identification and intervention. Wyoming currently uses the model that identifies students as disabled once they fall more than two grade levels behind. Many States use the same method, or a method called the IQ discrepancy test. Both of these models tend to limit the positive effects that timely services will have on a student's growth. Unfortunately, States are compelled to use these models because of the requirements that exist in Federal law.

This bill provides for a set-aside of part B funds that can be used for services such as tutoring or other special assistance to students who are at risk of being identified as needing special education. That will help these students meet their potential.

Research by the President's Commission on Special Education and the National Research Council has identified important benefits to providing early educational intervention. They suggest early educational intervention can reduce the number of children referred to special education.

That research also shows students receiving early educational intervention and who are referred to special education frequently require less intensive services.

I believe this is an important step toward ensuring that other disabled students receive the services they need without placing children in the special education programs unnecessarily. By using funds for early intervention services, schools will be able to provide services in a very seamless fashion to students with disabilities or students who may be unnecessarily referred to special education programs.

Second, this legislation addresses the needs of rural States by clearly defining what is a highly qualified teacher. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, which received large bipartisan support in Congress, all teachers in public elementary and secondary schools must meet the highly qualified teacher standard.

In rural States such as Wyoming, many teachers, including special education teachers, are responsible for multiple subjects. In my home State, they are sometimes responsible for multiple grades as well. The legislation we are considering would work hand in hand with the No Child Left Behind Act to help address the concerns of teachers in this challenging position.

This bill requires every disabled child to be taught by a highly qualified teacher, but it also maintains State flexibility to determine what constitutes highly qualified. The only requirement is that special education teachers have an undergraduate degree and be fully certified as special education instructors, and that the students have a chance to be taught by an instructor who is highly qualified in the subject area. The bill does not even require that be the same person.

In many schools, disabled students are placed in classrooms with their non-disabled peers, and they receive instructions from more than one teacher. Students with disabilities would be instructed in the appropriate subject area by a highly qualified teacher who has demonstrated mastery of the subject, but they would also receive support from a teacher who meets the highly qualified standard for special education. It is a very important distinction.

For teachers who are responsible for both the special education and the content area, this legislation preserves the flexibility of the State that was created under No Child Left Behind to define what constitutes a highly qualified teacher.

I continue to be impressed that more than 95 percent of Wyoming teachers meet the highly qualified teacher standard, including its special educators.

This legislation will support the commitment of States such as Wyoming with a 95-percent rate to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, whether it is a special education classroom or not.

The third point of the bill, that I want to address is that this legislation makes improvements to the disciplinary system that operates under current law. A concern I have heard from parents and educators is that the discipline of students with disabilities has led to the creation of a two-tier disciplinary system. Students with disabilities are treated differently from their peers because it is required by law.

I don't believe that is in the best interest of these students when we are asking, for academic purposes, that we place them in the least restrictive environment. It is inconsistent to say we would treat disabled students as we treat their peers until they are in need of discipline. Disabled students are able to learn responsibility just like their peers. We should give them a chance to learn the same kind of responsibility we expect of other students.

Many parents I talk with about discipline are concerned that we not allow teachers to discipline disabled students too harshly. I agree. I think everyone agrees. I support the bill we are considering because it preserves protections for disabled students, like the protection that schools must abide by the manifest determination standard, which requires schools to determine if the student's disability led to the behavior--that is a key--if the student's disability led to the behavior.

This bill also preserves the rights of parents to question the school's decision. I also believe this legislation makes significant improvements in permitting teachers and school administrators to properly discipline students with disabilities when a need is identified.

Schools are given a margin of flexibility to remove disabled students from their classroom when a dangerous situation presents itself. The school is still accountable to the parent, however, and must make every effort to return the student to the classroom as soon as possible.

Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of State flexibility. For years, local educational agencies have been permitted to use flexibility with their funding. As the Federal Government increases its commitment to funding special education programs, local districts in most States are able to shift funding into other priorities. Traditionally, their funding has not even been limited in its use to educational purposes.

This flexibility has never benefitted Wyoming. That is because Wyoming has decided to use an alternative financing method for its special education programs.

Instead of the State passing Federal funding on to the local districts, Wyoming retains the bulk of the funding at the State level and reimburses districts for their special education expenses. Part of the reason for this approach is we do not pay for our education with property taxes as most States do. We use mineral taxes, which come from a few spots in the State. This system has worked in Wyoming for several reasons, including the help it provides to shield local districts from the cost of services for severely disabled students.

Some of the districts in Wyoming are so small that a single student with a severe disability would require all of the funding available to that district to be spent on a single student. That would threaten the services to other children with disabilities and subject the district to due process hearings under the law.

Instead, Wyoming has elected to use its allocations under part B of the special education program as reimbursements. Even very small districts can confidently provide services to students with disabilities with the understanding that the State will reimburse them for those services.

Even though the system is much more effective at providing services to students with disabilities, the lack of flexibility in the use of Federal funding has tied the hands of the State's administrators who would like to use the funding for early identification and other educational programs. The irony

is, if Wyoming were to operate their special education programs differently, and less effectively, they would enjoy much more flexibility with their funding. Right now in Wyoming, families of students with disabilities are moving from other States to enroll their children in Wyoming schools because we have done so well at meeting their needs. Even though our programs are among the best in the region--and, I argue, among the best in the country--Wyoming is penalized for doing a good job just because we do it differently than Federal law suggests we do it.

The phrase ``one size fits all'' has been used a lot in the Senate lately on the subject of education. But at the risk of abusing the term, this is a perfect example of a one-size-fits-all program that does not fit Wyoming. If Wyoming were to pursue a less effective model of providing services to students with disabilities, the State could use more flexibility. Instead, because the State decided to use a system that places the needs of the students first, we are denied the same flexibility provided every other State.

The legislation we are considering now would address this concern. It would allow States that are responsible for the largest share of non- Federal special education funding to enjoy more flexibility at the State level. It is important to note that this flexibility is only applied to educational programs so no State can drain funding away from its educational programs for other purposes. The funding has to be used in conjunction with State educational efforts.

This is a critical piece of legislation, and one I feel strongly about retaining both in this legislation and the bill that is produced by the conference process.

Those are the four main points of the actual legislation. That is legislation, again, that we unanimously supported out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--that is no small achievement. It is important we move forward in the process. That is what we are doing now.

Of course, we are debating two amendments, the Harkin amendment and the Gregg amendment, which will each be voted on this afternoon. I will make a few comments in support of the Gregg amendment to fully fund the IDEA program.

According to assumptions in the Senate budget resolution this body passed earlier this year, we will have increased spending by 75 percent from 2001 levels. The Gregg amendment builds on those increases and sets us on a path to reach full funding by 2011. That is a very realistic path, one that we can do, one that we can slightly accelerate. It is not just a statement but something that can happen.

I have heard colleagues comment that we can do anything with statistics. That is a common perception. But if my colleagues would rather look at the real dollars, we spend more now on education than we ever have in this country at the Federal level. Right now, under the assumptions of the fiscal year 2005 budget, we will be at 20 percent of the share of Federal special education. The Gregg amendment would take us to the 40-percent mark in 7 years. That is the mark we have in the original legislation.

I have mentioned, again, that happened in 1966. We are at a higher level now than we have ever been. It is pretty remarkable since it took over 30 years to get to 20 percent, but most of the progress that has occurred has occurred under this President in the past 4 years.

I want to make it clear, we are closer to full funding now than we ever have been in the history of this IDEA program. To get there within 7 years is within reach, but we should not be confused that mandatory spending is the right solution. I can hear the Members who made previous speeches saying: No, no, this is not mandatory. The way I read it, it is mandatory. But even if it were not mandatory, I am not aware of a program, particularly not this program, where we reduced spending. Whatever level we take it to at this moment is where it will stay. Then we will fight to show we are more concerned than anyone else in raising the revenues in the future.

So we need to have a rational, realistic, and regular approach to raising the level of IDEA funding until we can come in compliance with the 40 percent that we promised.

We have made significant progress in the past 4 years toward full funding under the current administration and congressional leadership. There is no reason to assume we will not continue to make significant progress in the near future.

I want to mention again that under the previous President, during his 8 years, we increased part B funding $1.4 billion. Under this President, in 3 years we have increased it $3.7 billion.

I have to point out, under the previous administration we were funding during a surplus. We were funding in period of growth, not a recession. We were not funding during a time of terrorism. We were not funding during a time of war in Afghanistan. We were not funding during a time of war in Iraq. We were funding during a surplus, and we did not meet that 40-percent goal.

Now, when we have severe budget constraints, there is a political statement that says: Give it all to them. And then there is a balanced approach that Senator Gregg has that says: Let's grow it and really get it done and quit making the political statements on it.

We have an opportunity to advance IDEA and to advance the funding on it. I know we will take advantage of both.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gregg on attorney's fees. I am concerned about the effect frivolous lawsuits are having on the ability of our schools to provide services to special education students. Schools with limited resources, particularly small or rural schools, are especially vulnerable to the financial impact a frivolous complaint can have on scarce resources and limited funds.

I believe an important part of the debate on this amendment should focus on the practical impact that frivolous complaints have on the provision of services to students with disabilities.

When Federal funding was originally established for services to students with disabilities it was meant to be used for services, not for legal fees. I believe that is still the case. Unfortunately, some frivolous lawsuits against schools are having the effect of diverting funds from necessary services.

There are documented cases where schools have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars battling frivolous complaints that were filed under IDEA. As my colleague from New Hampshire has pointed out, there is one instance of a school spending $154,000 over a 2-year period to address seven complaints from the same parent. Another school spent $195,000 on complaints from one parent.

In Wyoming, $154,000 is more than some school district's entire special education administrative budget. It is very difficult to imagine successfully providing services to children with disabilities when faced with this kind of legal obligation to defend frivolous lawsuits.

The piece of the puzzle that get overlooked is that school districts do not have unlimited funds. If a school district spends $154,000 on legal fees defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is $154,000 that does not get spent on educational purposes.

I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that I think all complaints filed under IDEA are frivolous. We are talking about a very small minority of complaints, probably less than 1 percent.

Still, even though the number of frivolous complaints may not be significant to the big picture, but the cost to schools can be very significant.

A second major point I would like to make is that frivolous complaints undermine the effort of Congress to ``fully fund'' IDEA.

The issue of ``full funding'' for IDEA has received a lot of attention and we have been discussing it on the floor in this body as it relates to the underlying bill. I have never understood ``full funding'' to mean that the Federal Government should fully fund the legal fees for schools to resolve complaints under IDEA.

The ``full funding'' of IDEA that I am familiar with is the Federal goal of providing 40 percent of the cost of special education services to students. No one that I hear speaking of full funding talks about lawsuits, they talk about services to children.

Unfortunately, schools do not have the luxury of ignoring complaints, however frivolous they may be. They must assume that every complaint filed with be upheld and prepare accordingly. That diverts funds from other educational services.

Once the complaint is filed, the school must find a way to pay for the legal services it will require, and local education funding is the only pool of resources available to school districts.

This means local education will suffer when a frivolous lawsuit is filed, because the school will have to divert funds away from other priorities, even special education services, to pay for the cost of resolving the complaint.

This body should not overlook the fact that frivolous lawsuits are diverting limited resources away from services, eroding the effect of increased Federal appropriations.

This amendment would create a simple protection to defend schools from frivolous lawsuits and help retain Federal funds in proper streams to provide services for disabled students.

Parents filing legitimate complaints would not be liable for attorney's fees. The standard set by this amendment is higher than the standard currently followed by the courts in civil rights cases.

Some will argue that this amendment infringes on the rights of parents to pursue a complaint against a school district. That is not the case at all. This amendment simply provides a means for school districts to avoid the unnecessary costs of defending themselves from a frivolous lawsuit.

Legitimate complaints under IDEA would not be affected. Even complaints that could be considered marginally frivolous would not be affected. Only those complaints that meet a high standard of frivolity would be met with approved sanctions by the courts.

I believe this is a reasonable approach to an important issue and one that the Senate should be able to accept without objection.

Mr. President, from May 1-3, 2004 more than 1200 students from across the United States came to Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' This is the most extensive program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People'' program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am very proud to note that a class from Cheyenne Central High School in Cheyenne represented the State of Wyoming in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's capital and compete at the national level.

The 3-day ``We the People'' National Finals Competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder once described this annual competition as ``the place to come to have your faith in the younger generation restored.''

Most recently, the ``We the People'' program was highlighted at two national conferences held in 2003: the White House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service, and the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education. Evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the ``We the People'' program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. This innovative civic education program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation.

I am certain everyone enjoyed their participation in the ``We the People'' national finals and I applaud the achievements of all who took part in the program. We should all be proud that so many are focused on and are learning about the fundamental principles and ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of John Negroponte to be our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. When he takes his oath of office, Ambassador Negroponte will be our first ambassador to Iraq since the Gulf War of 1991.

I have had the pleasure of meeting with the ambassador many times over the last 3 years. He was a member of the Foreign Service from 1960 to 1997 and he is currently serving as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. His leadership there has been exemplary as he has provided our country with a strong voice and a presence at the United Nations that has been vital during these extremely difficult times. His experience at the United Nations gives him a great deal of insight into the thinking of the international community that will be invaluable in his new role in Iraq.

Soon Iraq will be welcomed back into the family of nations and the rights and freedom so cherished by the people of our nation will become a part of daily life in Iraq. Given our history in the region, I am certain my colleagues understand the wisdom of appointing an experienced diplomat with an informed opinion and a vision for the installation of a new government and the birth of a new nation of Iraq.

During our consideration of Ambassador Negroponte's nomination, I have heard some of my colleagues express their concerns about recent events in Iraq. That is understandable, because these are concerns we all share about this sensitive region of the world. We must not, however, allow those legitimate concerns to be politicized and used as a club against the President and his efforts to stabilize Iraq and introduce democracy there. Our soldiers' lives are on the line and we owe them every consideration while they are in harm's way.

Before anyone says I am being overly sensitive to the rhetoric of a campaign year, let me share with you a few of the details about what happened during a trip I took in April when I was able to visit wounded U.S. soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Before we met them, I was anticipating they would need some encouragement and we should try to lift their spirits after all they'd been through. The opposite turned out to be the case. They encouraged me and strengthened my spirit and resolve to see this through to the end. Every one of them, these brave men and women, said to me--``We are making a difference in Iraq. We know the people there. We know our job. We are doing our job and the people are responding to what we are doing. We are making a difference and we want to go back there with our comrades so we can finish the job.''

I don't believe anyone knows better than those who are serving on the front lines--those actually doing the work and living the dangers of life in a war zone every day. We have made a difference in Iraq. We have removed a brutal dictator from power and we are working with the Iraqi people to build a nation based on democracy and freedom. We are continuing to make a difference every day in the schools we help to build and operate, in the infrastructure we continue to improve and repair, and in the sovereignty of the people of Iraq which continues to command our deepest respect. We will continue to make a difference through democratization and the rule of law, economic reconstruction, and security and counterterrorism. By supporting all these areas, our diplomatic, civilian, and military personnel will make a lasting difference in the lives of the Iraqi people and they will, through their efforts have literally changed the world.

I hope my colleagues will remember that when we speak here on the Senate floor, our words are heard by those brave men and women overseas. Our words are heard by their families and their friends who make it possible for them to serve our Nation so well. They are also heard by our enemies who look to twist and distort our open discussions to make it appear that we have lost our will to see this through to the end. We must remember that fact each time we speak. If you wonder how I know if what I say is true, I can share my sources with you--our U.S. soldiers. They have asked me more than once: How come everything sounds so bad back home when it is improving in Iraq? We keep hearing this rhetoric which is based on the fight to win a presidential election, and it has nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq. Nonetheless, it has an impact on the morale and safety of our troops.

I have spoken here on the Senate floor about the importance of supporting our troops. I noted that we must remember to pray for our troops. When we do, I think we should also be praying for the opposition as well. We should pray that the hearts of those we fight will soften, and they will realize the role they are playing in the world and in Iraq. It is not too late for them to join us in the effort to build a better Iraq for all its people. Praying can make a difference, and it is up to all of us to do that every day. It is something we can do that is real and it has real power. With our faith, and our belief in our cause because it is just, we will continue to provide the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces, their spouses and their families with the support and encouragement they need and deserve by keeping them in our thoughts and in our prayers.

We also need to pray for those few soldiers at Abu Ghraib whose actions were severely misguided as well as those who suffered the shame and humiliation of those acts. I have heard many speak today about tearing down this prison facility, and that is a good idea. Let's rid the world of this terrible prison and do it completely so that it will never house or harm another Iraqi.

I hope that people in the United States and throughout the world will remember that these deeds do not represent the character of any but a few misguided American soldiers. This should not be the image that the world has of our troops because it is not the truth. I am pleased that action is being taken immediately to address this situation. Charges are being levied, investigations are continuing, and changes are being made to the prison administration. We are blessed to have a truly exceptional military force whose image should not be tarnished by the actions of a few.

We have a job to finish in Iraq and we must not shy away from completing it. The more rapidly the people of Iraq are able to stand on their own, the sooner our troops will be able to come home. We have undertaken a job, and we cannot afford to fail to complete the task at hand.

I have often heard it said that exceptional times call for exceptional people to lead us through them. We must have someone in Iraq who is able to fully represent the United States at the time the Coalition Provisional Authority transitions out of the country. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee stated this morning, we cannot expect to wake up the morning on July 1 and have a fully functioning U.S. Embassy. The time to plan for that day is upon us and I encourage my colleagues to join me in taking the first vital step by supporting Ambassador Negroponte's nomination. With the confirmation of this exceptional individual, we will ensure that we have a strong U.S. voice on the ground and the right person in charge who will show the world the level of our commitment to Iraq. It will also underscore our determination to make life better for Iraqis for generations to come. It is a dream we share with the Iraqi people and, with the right people in charge, it is a dream that will come true.

Mr. President, actually we are debating the JOBS bill right now. There is a lot of conversation that takes us in another direction. I suspect that is for a very specific purpose--actually to get into Presidential elections. What we ought to be concentrating on is making sure there are jobs in this country. Some of those jobs are at stake right now because the WTO said we violated international law and they placed a 5-percent penalty on companies from the United States, and that penalty grows at 1 percent a month.

While we delay on this bill, the price is going up for American business, and when business declines, the jobs decline. Perhaps that is a point one side would like to make. Maybe that is what they want to have happen. I don't want jobs to decline. I don't care who is President or what the race is. It is very important we get jobs.

Part of the discussion we have entered into under this JOBS bill has been one about the overtime rule the Secretary of Labor has published. We have heard a lot of comments about overtime from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I want people to know the rest of the story. I want people to be aware of the smokescreen that covers election year politics with misleading rhetoric about overtime pay. It is time to strip rhetoric from reality, look through the smokescreen, and see who is really helped and hurt by Senator Harkin's attempt to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime eligibility for white-collar workers. That is right, the word is ``updating.'' The Department was told by GAO the rule needed to be updated. The rule was outdated. The rule referred to things people cannot possibly comply with because nobody knows what they are anymore. It is confusing as well.

The Senator from Iowa has proposed keeping the trial lawyers' dream. He wants to keep the gray area in the bill as an addition to the rule. Yes. There is a gray area. I can tell you this mostly affects small businesses. I can tell you small businesses realize it is going to cost them about $375 million a year in overtime. I don't know how we can talk about a decrease in overtime when it costs them $375 million more in overtime, but to have the gray area cleared up they are willing to do that. Why are they willing to do that? Because right now that $375 million potential is for lawyers' fees to decide gray areas. Who needs that? We would rather put the money in the workers' pockets.

This clarifies who gets overtime, but it clarifies it more broadly than anything we have ever done before. Do you know right now the only people who know for sure they will get overtime are those who make less than $8,060 a year? Yes. If you earn over $8,060 a year, you move into this gray area where you may have to hire an attorney to help you figure out whether you get overtime. The small businesses have to do that.

This rule the Department of Labor has issued is going to raise that $8,060 to $23,660--pretty much triple the amount. It is long overdue. It needs to be done, and it was willing to be done from the very beginning.

The Department also put in there that white-collar workers earning over $65,000 were not assured of overtime. They listened to 75,000 comments and said, We picked the wrong number. It should be over $100,000.

You notice I mentioned white-collar workers. Blue-collar workers are exempt and assured of the overtime. It doesn't have the $100,000 limit on it.

Another thing that disturbs me about the debate we are having is the implication that without a rule, without a law, there would be no overtime. I want you to know there are businesses--particularly small businesses--out there that are not only paying overtime for some special tasks, but they are paying double time and triple time to be sure they have the workers they need to do the job.

There needs to be a rule. The rule needs to be one that is newer than the 50-year-old one so we can understand the jobs that are being talked about.

Last March, the Department solicited public comments on a proposal to update these regulations. They received more than 75,000 comments on the proposal. I happen to believe public comment plays a critical role in the regulatory process. We want the public to comment on any new rule being written. We then want the Department to review these comments and to respond to them. That is how the process is supposed to work. This is the regulatory process Americans expect and deserve. I have seen times before when agencies did not pay attention. Then it became critical for us to do something. That is not the case in this instance. They listened to the 75,000 comments that were sent in writing. It is obvious they listened to the comments on this floor, and they made those revisions in the rule before they published the final rule. The Department of Labor carefully considered those 75,000 comments. They listened to the concerns of the American people, and then they did the final overtime rule and they made substantial changes to the proposal.

I have my own concerns with the proposed rule. In fact, I wrote a letter to Secretary Chao, along with Senator Collins, asking the Department to pay particular attention to protecting the overtime status of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses.

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

Mr. President, we asked the final rule clearly ensure the overtime rights of these workers would not

be restricted. I am very pleased the Department made the changes to clearly reflect the overtime rights of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses would not be restricted.

Let me highlight some of changes that were made in the final rule to better protect the overtime rights of workers and many others.

The final rule states first responders such as police, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians are eligible for overtime pay. No question; no gray area, it clears it up.

The reference to training in the Armed Forces has been deleted and clarifies that veteran status does not affect overtime. The veterans will get their overtime regardless of the training received in the armed services.

The final rule also states licensed practical nurses do not qualify as exempt learned professionals and are therefore eligible for overtime pay.

The final rule retains previous law regarding registered nurses which assures them of overtime.

The final rule provides blue-collar workers are eligible for overtime pay.

To be considered exempt from overtime, the salary level for highly compensated employees is the final rule which has been increased from $65,000 to $100,000.

The final rule clarifies the contractual obligation under collective bargaining agreements is not affected.

The final rule maintains the previous law requirement that exempt administrative employees must exercise discretion and independent judgment.

The final rule clarifies there is no change to current law regarding the educational requirement for the professional exemption.

Significant changes were made to address the concerns raised about the proposed rule. This is exactly how the public comment period is designed to work and exactly how it did work in this situation. The regulatory process worked, and we have a final rule that is better for both workers and employers.

Again, we are talking about the small businessmen who do not have time to go through a lot of this or have the ability to hire attorneys to figure these things out. We need to keep it simple and understandable. The rule does that.

Before the final rule was published, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood in the Senate and blasted the proposed rule on the very issues that the final rule corrects. The Senator from Iowa still wants to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime pay for white collar employees. This would, in effect, tell the American people that the public's role in the regulatory process means nothing. This would say those 75,000 comments mean nothing. This would leave complex and confusing rules that have not been significantly changed in 50 years. We owe all our constituents more than that.

When I am back in Wyoming, I like to hold town meetings to find out what is on the minds of my constituents. At each town meeting there is usually someone in attendance quite concerned about government regulations. I am often told to rein in big government and keep rules simple, keep them current, keep them responsive, keep them understandable for small business, and make sure they make sense in today's ever-changing workplace.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle would take the opposite approach. Instead of keeping it simple and current, he wants to keep all of the gray areas from before and impose them on a second set of regulations. That is what we need--multiple sets of regulations; now a misunderstandable set with a new set imposed on it, protecting the old set so the trial attorneys' dream still exists. He wants to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from updating the outdated rules regarding white collar employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirements. Simply put, it is an attempt to reject the new, turn back the clock, and look to yesterday for the answers to tomorrow's problems. The amendment keeps the confusion. It is an approach that is doomed to failure. I am opposed to it.

There is no question the workplace has dramatically changed during the last half century. The regulations governing white collar exemptions, however, remain substantially the same as they were 50 years ago. The existing rule takes us back to the time when workers held titles such as straw boss, keypunch operator, leg man, and other occupations that no longer exist today. Our economy has evolved. New occupations have emerged that were not contemplated when the regulations were written. A 1999 study by the General Accounting Office, GAO, recommended that the Department of Labor comprehensively review current regulations and restructure white collar exemptions to better accommodate today's workplace and to anticipate future workplace trends. This is precisely what the Labor Department has done.

What will Senator Harkin's effort to block the final rule do? It will set the clock back to 1954 and try to force a square peg--the 21st century jobs--in the round hole of the workplace 50 years ago. Worse, it keeps the gray areas of the past rule instead of clarifying. This obstruction will undermine the Department of Labor efforts to extend overtime protection to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers. Under the old rule, only those workers earning less than $8,060 a year are automatically protected for overtime pay. The Department's new rule will raise this threshold to $23,660 a year. The final rule provides lower income workers with the protection they deserve.

By undermining the Department's efforts to better protect lower income workers, who is this amendment going to protect? The Department determined that few, if any, employees earning between $23,660 and $100,000 will lose their overtime pay under the new rule. The Department estimates that 107,000 employees who are earning over $100,000 could--could but not necessarily would--lose their overtime. Could our colleagues be willing to deny overtime pay for an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers in order to protect the overtime for the 107,000 workers earning above $100,000? Is Congress going to undermine the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is to protect low- wage workers?

The Senator from Iowa and his effort to block the final overtime rule will not protect first responders, veterans, blue collar workers, or nurses. The final rule has been improved to clearly protect the overtime rights of these workers. Therefore, the opponents of updating and clarifying the white collar overtime rule had to come up with new objections. No lawsuits necessary, it is very clear. That is what the Department intends.

On April 13, the AFL-CIO released and began soliciting contributions for a political TV ad attacking the Department of Labor final overtime rule. Here is what is interesting about that: That attack came a week before the final rule was publicly available, before they knew what was in it. Such tactics suggest a greater interest in playing election year politics than in protecting workers.

Let me respond to some misleading claims about the final rule. Some have claimed that team leaders will lose overtime pay under the final rule. In fact, the new rule will guarantee overtime protection for blue collar team leaders and is more protective of overtime pay for white collar team leaders. Furthermore, there is no change to current law regarding the overtime status of computer employees, financial services employees, journalists, insurance claims directors, funeral directors, athletic trainers, nursery schoolteachers, or chefs.

It is time to get beyond the election year rhetoric and misleading information about who is supposedly harmed by the Department's new overtime requirements; therefore, I am supporting the amendment offered by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to require the final overtime requirements to safeguard the overtime rights of workers earning less than $23,660 and certain categories of workers that some erroneously claim would lose overtime rights. His amendment very specifically names those and assures those rights. It is in the rule as well. I am confident the final regulations published by the Department of Labor on April 23 already do that, too.

The Gregg amendment serves to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress to ensure that the overtime rights of 55 listed occupations and job classifications are not weakened. These occupations and job classifications include the team leaders, registered nurses, the licensed practical nurses, oil and gas workers, refinery workers,

steelworkers, shipyard workers, journalists, firefighters, police officers, nursery schoolteachers, and financial services workers, to name a few.

The Harkin amendment effectively blocks the Department from extending overtime pay to low-wage workers and updating confusing overtime requirements. In contrast to the Harkin amendment, the Gregg amendment does not undermine the Department of Labor efforts to update and clarify the overtime requirements and extend overtime protection to 1.3 million low-wage workers and clear up these gray areas that just help the attorneys. The amendment offered by Senator Gregg will ensure that the overtime rights are guaranteed to those 1.3 million low-wage workers, strengthened for another 5.4 million workers, and clarified for all workers and employers.

The antiquated and confusing white collar exemptions have created a windfall for trial lawyers. Ambiguities and outdated terms have generated significant confusion regarding which employees are exempt from overtime requirements. The confusion has generated significant litigation and overtime pay awards for highly paid white collar employees. Wage and hour cases--this is important--now exceed discrimination suits as the leading type of employment law class action. The amendment assures those gray areas will stay, causing court action right now. The new rule clarifies and requires these areas be cleared up, but more clearly states the people who will absolutely get overtime. It states who will be entitled now. It protects the workers and puts the money in the workers' pocket, not in legal action. If these rules are clear, employers will know when they are complying with the law. This is important, particularly and especially for small business. That is for whom I always make my pleas.

Small businesses are the only ones being punished by the rules. They don't have the specialists to determine the gray areas. So they wind up in court having to solve the gray areas after the fact. It is much better to solve it before the fact. We have to worry about small businesses which should not have to rely on lawyers or accountants to tell them how to pay their employees.

The Department of Labor has estimated these new regulations are going to cost employers an additional $275 million on an annual basis. However, the new overtime rule will provide much needed clarity.

As a former small business owner, I know employers want to be able to pay their workers, not their lawyers. The Harkin blocking amendment would only add to the current state of confusion. Instead of preserving overtime rights, which the Harkin amendment purports to do, it will create even more complexity and litigation, piling rule on rule.

The blocking amendment creates a two-tiered scheme which would require two different tests to determine a worker's overtime status. The present gray area and the other one would have to be worked to be combined. So anything that would have been a gray area before will still be a gray area. It will freeze workers in jobs they have outgrown. The blocking amendment will mire the final overtime regulation in years of litigation, likely preventing them from ever taking effect.

The only clear winners for the effort to block the new rule will be the trial lawyers who will benefit from a continued state of confusion. Most people would prefer to live in a different state than that. We are spending taxpayer dollars sorting through cases that could be solved with clarity.

Under the blocking amendment, workers will still have to wait years for a court to act before they could receive the overtime pay they deserve. Why should the United States stand in between workers and their overtime pay? We need to defeat the blocking amendment that would block the final rules from taking effect. We need to ensure that American workers deserving of overtime pay will see their hard work reflected in their paychecks, not in litigation.

Today's Washington Post editorial urges lawmakers to hold off blocking the new overtime rules from taking effect. I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

The Washington Post states:

What's needed now is not to block these regulations but to

ensure that they are vigorously enforced with an eye to

protect the vulnerable workers the law was intended to

benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment which will allow the Department of Labor to provide clearer and fairer overtime rights for workers. I also urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Harkin's reform blocking amendment which will only line the pockets of the trial lawyers.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline under cloture rules for second-degree amendments to the Daschle amendment occur at 11:30 a.m. today.

Madam President, I am a little disturbed at some of the words I heard on the Senate floor this morning. The minority is trying to take the President apart at the cost of our troops, and we cannot stand for that. We have people fighting in Iraq. Two weeks ago I was in Germany, and I met with some of the wounded troops. We thought we would have to pump them up, but they pumped us up. Their message to us was: How come everything sounds so bad back home when it is improving in Iraq? They said the people of Iraq appreciate what we are doing. We are making a difference. Let us do our job.

Then we hear this rhetoric which is just based on a Presidential election. It has nothing to do with the true feelings in Iraq or the protection of our troops. In much the same way, I hear people on that side of the aisle trying to scare seniors about Medicare.

Seniors are about to get the best advantage they have ever had since the founding of Medicare, and that is the new prescription drug program.

Next week, we will take the first step in the history of Medicare toward providing seniors with the help they need to pay for their prescription drugs. We made improvements to Medicare in a three-stage parcel so that it can be done right. What begins next week is that people begin to get information so they can select a prescription drug card where they will get 10- to 20-percent discounts on the drugs they are taking now. They can do it easily. They can go online and make a comparison, or they can call 1-800-MEDICARE and talk to live people, tell them what their drugs are, and get some help in gathering information. But they do not have to make the decision right now. That is just a telephone call to find out what the best possibility is right now.

So seniors can begin to run options through their minds and make the best selection for the drugs they take to get the biggest discount they possibly can.

This is an historic new benefit for seniors, and I am sorry there has been so much rhetoric surrounding the new law. There are some people who would prefer to have had an issue instead of a solution. But President Bush said we are going to have a prescription drug plan, and because he put the effort behind it, and because people here believed in it, we got a solution.

The solution comes in three parts: By June 1, seniors can get the drug card. That is the 2004 benefit. In 2005, for the first time seniors under Medicare will be able to get a physical, part of preventive medicine. We think that it is important that people find out what their medical problems are early and solve them. Preventive medicine is proven to be the most beneficial for the patient and absolutely the best from a pain standpoint, and it does prevent problems from happening, which is also a huge cost saver.

So get on the phone or get on the Internet. Seniors should call in, find out how the drug benefit works, and they will receive up to 10 to 20 percent off the prices they are paying now for their drugs. And if they happen to be a low-income senior who signs up for the card, they will receive an extra $600 in credit in 2004 and 2005 to help pay for their prescriptions.

A number of the pharmaceutical companies also have agreed to provide their brands of drugs free of charge to seniors who exhaust their $600 credit. That is going to cost the companies quite a bit of money.

Some people who say we didn't do anything, that there is a donut hole in the benefit. My response is, before we did the Medicare bill there was not even a donut. Now there is only a donut hole.

So in 2006, there will be more extensive and comprehensive coverage of prescription drugs, and a maximum out-of-pocket spending of $3,600 per person on drugs before catastrophic coverage kicks in.

There has been a tremendous benefit that has been delivered, but seniors have to participate if they are under Medicare. They have to do the research to find out what the best discount card for them would be.

There are two ways to do that. One is on the Internet at Medicare.gov. The other is by telephone at 1-800-MEDICARE. There will be live people on the phone to help seniors gather the information by June 1. Seniors do not have to sign up until June 1, but they should do the research and watch what happens to the price as competition kicks in. That is what this is, a number of companies vying for the business of seniors, all seniors, because all seniors will have help with their drug benefit--up to 10 to 20 percent, in some cases higher with the discount cards, but $600 if they are low income, and some other benefits beyond that.

I hope we can end some of the rhetoric that is coming from the other side of the aisle about what this does and does not do, and we can get on board and help seniors to take advantage of what has been done. We talked about doing a benefit for years, and it did not get done. The President got behind it, pushed it, said we will have it done, and it is done. The reality is now that seniors have access to new benefits under Medicare, they can sign up for that with a drug discount card beginning next week. They do not have to sign up until June 1 with no penalty if they wait until then.

So let us do what is right by seniors and put politics aside for a moment. There will be plenty of time later for debating and campaigning. The great majority of seniors will benefit from the new Medicare discount cards.

Let me recap again what this bill does.

Next month, seniors can begin signing up for a Medicare-endorsed drug discount card that will save them 10 to 20 percent, at least, off retail drug prices. Seniors with low incomes will also get up to $600 in credit to help them pay for their prescriptions.

Next year, Medicare will cover new preventive benefits, including a ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical exam for all Americans when they turn 65.

And in 2006, Medicare will offer voluntary, comprehensive drug coverage, with special benefits for seniors with low incomes and seniors with high drug bills.

The new drug benefit will be voluntary. It will offer the most help to those who need the help most. And it will provide much-needed security and peace of mind to seniors who worry about losing their life savings in the event of a devastating illness.

Despite all of these good things, there are still some who insist on ``talking down'' this new Medicare drug benefit. There are some who are trying to convince seniors and their families that this is somehow a raw deal, a sham, or worse.

I hear that, and I know that other Members who voted for the Medicare bill from both sides of the aisle hear these things. And then I review again what the bill actually does, and I wonder what the problem is.

I think I have finally figured out the problem.

The problem is that this new Medicare drug benefit does not fit the tired old storyline about Republicans and healthcare.

We Republicans know the story all too well. I am surprised someone has not turned it into a children's book yet, so that kids can hear it when they are very young. Or maybe someone has.

The tired old story changes over time, but the main points are always the same.

The tired old story is that Republicans do not care about healthcare; they do not care if healthcare is affordable or available to everyone; they do not care if people with low incomes can get care when they need it; they do not care about seniors and their drug bills.

And the problem for the storytellers is that the facts on the Medicare drug benefit do not support their story.

Nevertheless, the storytellers persist in peddling this tale. It is so bad right now that some of the storytellers are trying to undo this important legislation before it even gets off the ground. In fact, some are completely reversing their longstanding positions on this issue, in an attempt to remove parts of the new Medicare law that are nearly identical to sections of their bills from recent years.

I understand why some in the minority are upset with the new Medicare law. They are upset because Republicans campaigned 2 years ago on a promise to pass a meaningful drug benefit for seniors, and we delivered on that promise.

But the reality is that now seniors have access to new benefits under Medicare, and they can sign up for the first new benefit--the drug discount card--beginning next week.

So let's do right by seniors and put politics aside for a moment. There will be plenty of time later for debating and campaigning.

The great majority of seniors will benefit from the new Medicare drug discount cards. Our job should be to work together to help seniors make the best decisions about their own healthcare and their own finances. Let's give them the right information so they can decide whether to sign up, and which card to choose. Let's do this now, because seniors deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on final passage of the Internet access tax moratorium. After months of negotiations, I believe the amended version before us represents a fair and reasonable compromise. It addresses, although not entirely, most of the concerns I raised when we debated this bill in November. I plan to vote for it today.

I do not support taxing the Internet. I never have. I stood before you 2 years ago and proposed an amendment that would have put in place a ``permanent'' moratorium. But my colleagues, at the time, presented a very compelling argument as to why a ban on taxing the Internet should not be made permanent. They said we should simply extend the moratorium for 2 years rather than put in place a permanent mandate on technological development.

The major point of contention, they said, was the way in which we defined ``Internet access.'' They said we needed to let technology develop before defining what could and could not be taxed 10 years down the road. In retrospect, I agree with my colleagues, and I agree with my colleagues now. The moratorium needs to be extended for 4 years, as is done in this compromise. We need to put in place a moratorium for 4 years because it is extremely difficult to write a definition today that will protect and promote technology even 5 years down the road. Technology is simply changing too fast for us to make those kinds of decisions with any certainty.

For example, in my home State of Wyoming, we have a small telephone company in the northwestern part of the State that serves about 7,000 people. Two years ago, in this small community, the company was working to update their plain old telephone system so they could handle the capacity needed for dial-up networking.

Today, after 2 years of upgrades and investments, the company now offers to every single customer a package of high-speed Internet access, digital cable service, multiple telephone lines, and voice over the Internet in some areas. Talk about rapidly changing technology. This company is making things happen. However, at the same time, the company's progress highlights the difficulty we face in determining what is and what is not Internet service.

For instance, most of us don't know exactly when a local telephone call ceases to be a telephone call and becomes a dial-up Internet service. We don't understand how to decipher a digital packet of voice information from a digital packet of Internet service information. And we certainly don't know exactly how the digital data in our BlackBerrys connects to our desktop computers at home, to our laptop computers in the car, or to our mobile phones in our pockets. But, we do know when we are trying to make a phone call and when we are typing with our fingers.

Voice telecommunications are treated differently than other broadband Internet services, and that is a fact. It is not fair and it is not right, but it is a fact. The compromise before us recognizes this problem. That is why it carves out VOIP or voice over the Internet. I am pleased my colleagues were able to craft language this afternoon that improved the original VOIP provision included in the McCain substitute. The new language makes it more clear and easier for our States, cities, businesses, and judicial system to interpret.

I am glad my colleagues were able to reach an agreement on the issue of VOIP. Unfortunately, we weren't as lucky on the definition of ``internet access service.'' The Allen-Wyden, Alexander-Carper and McCain proposals all contained different definitions that would restrict the ability of States and locals to tax telecommunications services. What troubled me was that each definition would have cost our States millions of dollars, but nobody could tell me exactly how much it would have cost them. That is the problem.

CBO was unable to estimate how much our States and locals would lose under the Allen-Wyden or McCain definitions, but clearly stated that the loss could be ``substantial.'' The most concrete numbers from CBO were provided in a letter dated November 5, 2003. In that letter, CBO estimated that revenue losses could range from $80 to $120 million per year to State and local governments that are already taxing Internet access and were covered by the ``grandfather clause.''

Additionally, CBO states that ``other states are currently imposing taxes on charges for the portions of DSL services they do not consider Internet access.'' Those States would lose between $40 and $75 million per year. As you will recall, under the Allen-Wyden and McCain definition, taxation of all DSL services would be preempted.

The Multistate Tax Commission estimates that the loss could be as much as $4 billion to $8 billion under the Allen-Wyden and McCain definitions. Given these two examples, there is clearly a lot of discrepancy between the agencies that are supposed to know the most.

Of course, the Alexander-Carper definition wasn't perfect either. It would have also cost our States millions of dollars over time, but it would have been far less significant. It would have prevented States from collecting new revenue from consumers who are paying for the last mile of their DSL services. However, once again, nobody could tell me-- including CBO--how much the Alexander-Carper definition would have cost. With over $20 billion being collected from taxes on telecommunications services every year, this imprecise data made it difficult for me to support any definitions. That is why we had to include other provisions--like the grandfather provisions and the VOIP language--that would help cushion the impact this bill will have on our States and locals.

The grandfather provisions are important because they ensure that States and locals that are currently taxing do not lose millions of dollars over the next couple of years. I had hoped all of the grandfather clauses would expire at the same time, but we were beat fair and square. The problem is that extending the grandfather for some States for only 2 years still creates an unfunded mandate.

As many of you know, this is an issue I have followed closely for years. Questions about unfunded mandates have always been the issues that cause me, especially when I served in the Wyoming State legislature, to sit up and take notice. Whenever Congress takes up an issue that could have an effect on State revenues, every State Governor and legislature stops what they are doing to see what we are up to--and how it may affect them--or more to the point--what it is going to cost them.

So now, after months of hearings, meetings and negotiations, we are getting ready to pass a bill that could create an unfunded mandate for a couple of years but doesn't do it permanently, which I am pleased about. The original Allen-Wyden bill proposed a ``permanent'' moratorium on access taxes and ``permanent'' definition of internet access. My question was whether or not we should lock any type of technology in a glass box labeled ``permanent'' when that technology is changing shape and size at the speed of light. The problem with the word ``permanent'' was that it didn't allow for a lot of wiggle room. The changing shape of technology would break the glass box whether we like it or not, so I am pleased that we crafted a bill that will keep the latch open to allow for expansion and future growth. That way we can check on the progress of technology in 4 years, and then decide whether we should lock it up tighter or change its design to allow for more expansion and development.

The key words here are time and change. By signing on to something that was supposed to be ``permanent'' we would have been committing ourselves to something that might not have survived the test of time. Things are moving quickly and changing fast and we are trying to make decisions about what lies down the road based on what we have just driven past--or the scenery that surrounds us right now. It might work. But it might not. It might not because no other product of technology has seen such growth and

change in the past few years as the Internet and information technology. That is what has made it a difficult issue to track and to address in terms of what its future may hold. The bill we have before us is an effort to allow some of these issues to ripen, while protecting internet users from future taxation.

That being said, I think we might benefit from taking a look at the past history of the issue before we try to form an opinion on its future. Two years ago, I stood before you and offered an amendment that would have--like this bill--made the moratorium on Internet access permanent. At the time, I believed we were taking a fair and equitable approach to a prohibition on taxing the Internet.

My amendment, which was cosponsored by my good friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, would have made the ban on taxing the Internet permanent, and it would have simplified the extremely cumbersome network of State sales and use taxes. My amendment failed, in part because most Senators did not want to put in place a ``permanent'' moratorium.

The other reason my amendment failed was because it addressed a complex issue that most Senators did not understand. It was the issue of streamlined sales and use tax. I introduced the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Act in 2001 and again last year because it would greatly reduce the complexity of our system of sales and use taxes.

This year, Senator Dorgan and I have been joined by 18 bipartisan cosponsors in introducing S. 1736. Like our bill in the 107th Congress, S. 1736 would make it easier for American consumers and businesses to conduct sales from remote locations and help States begin to recover from years of budgetary shortfalls. It would authorize States that have signed the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and have passed legislation simplifying their tax system to require all sellers to collect and remit sales taxes.

S. 1736 is a critical piece of legislation that many of my colleagues are learning more about and recognizing its growing importance as Internet usage explodes. Two years ago the revenue loss attributed to the Internet sales tax loophole was fairly minimal. Today, the revenue loss has ballooned as online and other remote sales have increased. The States have responded to this budget crisis by signing the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and implementing legislation that drastically simplifies their sales and use tax systems. In fact, 20 States have already signed into law the necessary implementing legislation, while 9 others are currently in the process of doing so.

Two years ago, my colleagues said the States hadn't come far enough in the process to warrant congressional action. I think the opposite can be said today. The States have taken the bull by the horns and are poised to act. Now, Congress needs to step up and do the same.

The sales and use tax bill has been referred to the Finance Committee and I hope to work with Chairman Grassley and others to bring it up in committee some time this year. But, that is not what we are talking about here today.

Let me be clear--we are not talking about sales and use taxes today as part of the internet access tax moratorium. These are two completely separate issues. Today we are talking about the Internet access tax moratorium.

The compromise before us doesn't address every concern raised by the States and locals, but it doesn't address every concern raised by industry either. But, isn't that the sign of a true compromise? Both sides have to give a little in order to come up with the best product.

I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the issue to find middle ground that would protect consumers and ensure that States and localities don't lose billions in tax revenue. I think we have found the middle ground. I have talked to both Republicans and Democrats and this is the bipartisan solution.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, so we can allow the use of the Internet to continue to prosper and grow. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. I hope you will vote with me in favor of both.

Mr. President, yes, we should get an equal amount of time in order to respond to what the Senator from Nevada said.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his courtesy and his previous offer to let me speak. I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about a number of things that have come up today. We have talked a little bit about the war in Iraq. We have talked a little bit about the environment because Earth Day is tomorrow. We have talked a little bit about overtime and we have talked a lot about energy. I am going to cover those topics as well as some other things that need to be known.

I am going to start with the war in Iraq because last week I had the opportunity to go with Senator Sessions and Senator Chambliss to visit NATO and then to go into Germany and to visit with some of the troops that have been wounded in Iraq. Some of them have been wounded very severely. In fact, those who are not severely wounded do not leave Iraq. There are hospitals in Iraq that take care of them and then get them back into the fray. Those who have been injured worse are flown to Landstuhl Hospital in Germany where they are stabilized, treated, and then sent back to the United States for more treatment.

The three of us had an opportunity to visit that hospital. We split up into three groups so we could talk to more of the soldiers. We thought we would be able to perhaps pump them up a little bit after what they had been through. Quite the reverse happened. They pumped us up. It was a tremendous experience.

These people, men and women, to a person said: We are making a difference in Iraq. We know the people over there, we know our job, we are doing our job, the people are responding to what we are doing, and we are making a difference.

The other side is so worried that they are bringing in people to take us on. Every one of them wanted to be patched up as fast as possible and go back to help their buddies. They knew what the job was. They knew the people there. It was tremendously inspirational.

The next day we went to an Army training base that a lot of U.S. soldiers in the past had been assigned to and are still assigned to, but they have been moved to Iraq. They have been assigned to Iraq and they had just been on another overseas assignment, had been back about 8 months and were assigned to Iraq. Some of the spouses there had had husbands extended in Iraq. We wanted to find out what they were feeling, what they were thinking. It was a chance to visit with them, and so we did.

Again, we were the ones who were encouraged. I remember one of the spouses explaining that part of the job of a soldier is to watch the back of his buddy, and when some of the troops are pulled out prematurely there is nobody to watch somebody's back. Then the lady said: If my husband was the one who had to stay and somebody got pulled out, I would not be able to take it. So if my husband is the one who has to stay to protect somebody else, that is their job. That is what I want him to do. That is what he needs to do. That is what will make the difference.

What I noticed at both of those meetings was that other countries of the world say the reason we are the most powerful country in the world is because of the money we spend on being powerful. Some people would say it is because of the technology we have developed that makes us more equipped with more advanced things than any other country in the world. Both of those play a small role, but what makes the difference between the United States and the other countries is the people of this country, the young men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces-- their dedication, their innovation, their ability to think, their ability to react, and their patriotism.

Then we have another secret weapon, and that secret weapon is the spouses and the families who are praying for and supporting the troops. That is a force other countries cannot reckon with, and we should be so appreciative.

I want to mention one other thing that might seem unusual. When we were meeting with one of the generals, the general prayed. Now, I am not sure that is acceptable under the Constitution as it might be interpreted by some judges, but he prayed. He knows that will make a difference.

One of the things that occurred to me while he was doing that is we often almost always remember to pray for our troops, but I think we probably ought to be praying for the opposition as well. We ought to be praying for the opposition to soften their hearts, for the opposition to realize what is happening in the world and the role they are playing. Praying can make a difference, and it is up to all of us to try that, with faith, and see if it will not support these admirable troops, their spouses, and their families.

I will switch to another topic now. Tomorrow is Earth Day and all of us are concerned about the future of the Earth. We are concerned about the environment, and we are concerned about the activities that happen in that environment. Earlier there was a comment about wilderness areas and how wilderness study areas can be violated.

I need to address this wilderness study issue because Wyoming is the only State in the Nation that negotiated its wilderness areas years ago. We wanted to get that figured out. We wanted to protect vast areas, and we did. There is always the recommendation that there be additional wilderness study areas, and we do not have any problem with that, with a small caveat, and that is that the wilderness study areas are often areas that are being used as part of the economy of our State. They are already areas that have had development.

Do my colleagues know what happens when they go into a wilderness study area. They go into an indefinite period of being studied with nothing being allowed to happen on that land. The things that were already happening cannot continue. It moves back to a primitive state, with no activity, for an indefinite period of time.

There are some wilderness impact study areas that have been looked at for 20 years. Do my colleagues not think a decision ought to be able to be made in less than 20 years? There might even be some out there that are longer than that.

The fear of people whose economy relies on an area that they have already been using is it will be designated a wilderness impact study area and they will lose their right to use it for what they have been earning their living at, for years, while it is not being studied. That is a crime.

Another problem we have is it is a big country and things tend to be one size fits all. For instance, I just saw an ad in the paper asking people to send money to help preserve wolves. It was a glorious ad. That is what ads are. They are to sell people on doing things. But they only tell one side of the story, and I hope before people send their money they will check with areas that are being impacted by a wolf population. It has a little bit to do with our Endangered Species Act.

The Endangered Species Act is a Federal policy. It has to be. This is a vast country and we try to save things all over--and we need to. But it is an unfunded mandate for States, for counties, for towns, and particularly for individuals. That is against the law, to put unfunded mandates on the States, the counties, and the people, but we do it with the Endangered Species Act.

Right now, Wyoming's wolf program costs about $1.2 million a year. That is coming out of the Wyoming pocket; that is not coming out of the Federal pocket. There are county expenses involved in it that are not being paid for by the Federal Government. There are individuals who can no longer use their land, they can't make the living on their land they were making because of a Federal policy. Do we pay them anything for that? No, we don't. We should. There are definitely laws about

takings, but the Endangered Species Act has not adjusted to that.

Just today, in the Wyoming media, there was an article about the failure of the Feds to list the Colorado River cutthroat trout. So far none of the cutthroat trout has been listed as endangered. We have been doing a job in Wyoming of replacing them in traditional streams where they have been. In fact, in Saratoga, WY, we killed off a huge brook trout population and replaced it with cutthroat trout which were the native trout of that area. The people were a little disturbed to find out that the Colorado cutthroat doesn't grow as big as the brook trout which they were used to fishing. The whole stream was poisoned out and these other fish were put in, and they were prohibited from using any fish in this river for a number of years. Most of the people I know do catch-and-release fishing, but there can be fish killed doing that. Under the Endangered Species Act, that would result in Federal action against the fisherman.

I am hoping the fishermen of the country are paying attention, as they are talking about listing some of these endangered species. The fishermen of this country have been doing a marvelous job of making sure species are preserved.

I will tell you an interesting little story. There is a fish hatchery near Saratoga. It doesn't have brook trout or Colorado cutthroat trout in it; it has lake trout in it. How did they come to get in the lake trout business in Wyoming? A number of years ago, some lake trout were caught out of the Great Lakes. They were transported by rail to Montana. They were backpacked into Yellowstone and planted in a lake there and they grew well. Eventually the lake trout in the Great Lakes had a problem. They died off. Where did they go to replace them? We built a hatchery in southern Wyoming. We caught lake trout out of Yellowstone Park, put them in this hatchery, raised them to maturity and got eggs, grew some of those, took some back in the form of eggs and planted them in the Great Lakes. So the loop of preservation was provided by the State of Wyoming.

That is the way species have to be provided for, not by prohibiting and stopping, through regulation, people from being able to use what they have traditionally used. The fishermen are some of the people who are working to overcome this.

There is a little animal called the black-footed ferret. It was extinct. You would think that was supposed to mean there weren't any around. They found some in Wyoming. A little while after they discovered this animal still existed, they found out that a number of them were being wiped out by a plague. The State of Wyoming went in and trapped all of the rest of the black-footed ferret, and the State of Wyoming built a special facility to raise them and try to get as much cross development as possible. Today the black-footed ferret has been planted back in rural areas of the western United States. It has made a huge difference. But that was all done at Wyoming expense; that was not done at Federal expense. Something needs to be done about the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about energy. We have regulated ourselves out of business. We have regulated ourselves to higher prices. We have regulated ourselves so the source of our oil is in the Middle East.

In 1973 we had a crisis. Senator Hansen was the Senator from Wyoming who held this seat. I had him speak to a Wyoming Jaycees session about what was happening when we got cut off from oil in the Middle East. Beginning then, Senators were saying we needed to do something so we would never have an oil crisis again, that we could not be dependent on the Middle East.

I think we were at 35 percent use from the Middle East at that time. We are now at 60 percent use from the Middle East. They hold us in the palm of their hand for our money. Our money is sponsoring whatever happens in the Middle East. They don't base the price on true supply and demand. They control the price.

I once got to meet the fellow who determined how many barrels they ought to ship, to raise the price or lower the price. Lower the price, you say? Yes, lower the price. If you lower the price drastically you can drive production in the United States out of business. They have done it twice. They have driven it out of business. What happens when the price shoots back up and we buy more oil from them? The U.S. production cannot recover because the people who used to be in that business had to find other work. Finding trained people in that business, to do what they had been doing, is impossible. That is how the Middle East has manipulated us twice that I know of. I think they do it, on a much more minute basis, on a regular basis now.

Earlier there were some numbers over there on a chart. It showed 77 cents as the cost of a gallon of crude oil. Then it showed manufacture, and it showed the filling station--manufacture at 25 cents, filling station at 10 cents, and Federal taxes at 52 cents, which came to $1.64, which was listed as the fair price for a gallon of gas.

I love to get into the numbers because I am the only accountant in the Senate. That is based, I guess, on 42 gallons of oil to the barrel. But 42 gallons at the current price would be 88 cents a gallon, not 77 cents a gallon. But that is based on the whole 42 gallons being able to be made into gasoline when in fact you end up with 19.4 gallons--yes, less than half of what was in that barrel actually is able to go into your car gas tank. So instead of 88 cents--well, there are byproducts they get to sell, too, and that is how they are able to hold it down, I guess.

I want to comment a little bit on the 25 cents, the 25 cents that goes to the refiner. The 25 cents that goes to the refiner is not profit. Boy, I bet they wish it were. The 10 cents that goes to the filling station is not profit. That is the difference between what they buy it for and what they sell it for. All of them have to provide employees, they have to provide facilities, and they have to pay taxes. So there are a lot of costs that go into it.

Particularly with the refinery again, we need to have regulations to make sure we keep our environment clean, but we have to be sure what we are doing is what really needs to be done. Nobody is building a refinery in this country anymore--nobody. In fact, we are reducing the number of refineries, which means we are reducing our capacity to provide what needs to be provided, and at the same time we are saying there have to be a whole bunch of different kinds of gasoline.

These gasolines are going to be designed which means they are more complicated for particular parts of the country. If you keep doing that, you keep driving up the price. That is part of the 25 cents that the refiner has to use. The more you increase the cost and reduce that 25 cents, the less gas you are going to have in this country.

I was out in California a while ago. The Senator from California was making some of these speeches.

I have to say I don't think you have seen anything in the way of an energy crisis yet, unless we can do something with an energy bill.

I was out in California. As you go from Las Vegas, you will see this real dark cloud that appears. That is coming from California. When I was there, I found that they have a pooling lane for high-occupancy vehicles. You need two people in the car to be a high-occupancy vehicle. I have never driven on a wide road like that in Wyoming, but out there they have five and six lanes. One of those lanes is saved for people who carpool. I think it was rush hour. I can tell you that the other five lanes were jammed with traffic. They weren't going anywhere. My wife and I in our car constituted the two and we could use the pooling lane. We just zipped right through. It was absolutely amazing.

But I thought I must be seeing half of California's population stalled, creating pollution and not carpooling like they are suggesting the rest of us ought to do.

There are some things that can be done, which need to be done and hopefully will be done.

But you haven't seen anything in the way of energy prices, if we don't get a national energy policy and don't get some reliability as to what we have in the United States.

We have been touting natural gas as clean fuel, and it is. But there is only

one State that has an increase in the amount of natural gas it is producing. That is Wyoming. The rest of them are declining.

Let us see what happens if the use slows up and the supply goes down. Oh, the price goes up. You could be seeing the lowest prices in energy that you are ever going to see if we could use some of that U.S. ingenuity and figure out ways to make hydrogen out of the coal or other things. But I do have a lot of faith in U.S. ingenuity, provided we don't regulate them out of business.