Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am proud to honor an Idahoan who has devoted his adult life to helping the disabled, and the past 37 years, doing this by leading the Development Workshop Incorporated, DWI, the largest community rehabilitation program in Idaho. DWI provides work and life skills and job training to those with disabilities, and helps them move into gainful employment. When Dwight founded DWI in 1971, it served 12 individuals; now, it's grown to a company that serves 700 to 800 people with locations in five eastern Idaho counties.

Dwight's steady leadership, renowned courtesy and high integrity led DWI to success and earned him the Milton ``Milt'' Cohen Leadership Award from the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped in 2006. Dwight led efforts over the years to preserve funding and promote legislation at both the State and national level for individuals with disabilities. In his position, he has consistently sought out commonsense solutions to service and funding challenges and has surely been most rewarded by seeing DWI grow into an organization of such esteem and reputation.

The face of community rehabilitation in southeast Idaho has undergone a significant transformation over the past four decades, and the citizens of Idaho Falls and the surrounding areas have Dwight to thank. I wish him well in his retirement and am certain that he will bring the same gifts of leadership, comity and energy to whatever path he chooses to walk next.

Mr. President, our outlook on life and the effect we have on others is largely dependent upon how we respond to our life experiences. We can choose to make a difference in our world, or sit back and let others blaze trails. As I get older, I am more and more convinced that these choices have little to do with our physical capabilities or the circumstances of our upbringing. I meet people who have overcome seemingly monumental challenges and live to make a difference in the lives of others. In the same manner, I meet those with observably few challenges who are content to sit on the sidelines. A most remarkable example of someone who has responded to the circumstances and events in his life by choosing to make a difference in the lives of others is Idahoan Kelly Buckland, president of the National Council for Independent Living and an extraordinary advocate for people with disabilities.

Kelly grew up on a farm outside of Rexburg, ID. When he was 15, he became a quadriplegic as a result of a diving accident. Kelly has recalled that, upon returning home after a year of hospitalization, he became deeply depressed. But with the encouragement of his parents who, among other things, rigged up farm equipment so that Kelly could continue doing what he had done before the accident, Kelly began to recover from his depression. Recalling the people that helped him and others during his hospitalization, Kelly made a choice that would change his life and the lives of many others over the years: he chose to use his many gifts and talents to help those in need.

Kelly obtained a bachelor's degree in social work from Boise State University. He graduated summa cum laude with a master's degree in rehabilitation counseling from Drake University. He was exposed to the legislative process early in his career and realized that he had an interest and a gift for public policy. In the 1980s, Kelly was instrumental in the initial effort to install curb cuts in the city sidewalks in Burley, ID, to help with wheelchair accessibility. Kelly's advocacy then turned to the State, where he was able to help change Idaho State law to provide protections for parents with disabilities. Idaho State law now prohibits the removal of a child from a home or the denial of visitations solely because of a parent's disability. Idaho was the first State in the Nation to pass equal child custody rights for parents with disabilities in all areas of child custody.

As the executive director of the Idaho State Independent Living Council, Kelly made it his priority to fight for equal rights and equal protection under the law for those with disabilities, especially in areas of fair housing and healthcare. His outreach and advocacy has gone beyond just the State level as well--Kelly has testified before Congress on issues facing individuals with disabilities in his capacity as president of the National Independent Living Council.

Kelly has received several local and national awards. In 2000, he received the University of Idaho's President's Medallion. Kelly was honored with the 2005 Hewlett-Packard Company Award for Distinguished Leadership in Human Rights and, in 2007, Kelly was honored at the Kennedy Center with induction into the Spinal Cord Injury Hall of Fame for significant contributions to quality of life and advancements toward a better future for all individuals with spinal cord injury or disease.

One of Kelly's profound strengths is unique ability to perceive and appreciate the position of others, and to help others understand his point of view in a respectful, honest manner. He is highly skilled at helping those who may perceive themselves in opposition to one another reach a place where they can meet and find a common middle ground. Despite his many accomplishments, Kelly is exceedingly humble, preferring to give credit to others for many of the successes in which he's been instrumental. He has observed that we all have something we perceive as a hindrance to our own success, but it is our responsibility to acknowledge perceived limitations and move forward rather than devote time and energy in focusing on what we think our particular limitations prevent us from doing.

Kelly has devoted his time and energy to ensuring that those who have experienced legal, occupational and personal difficulties as a result of their disabilities have a voice in changing our laws to ensure true independence for all. His own words echo his convictions: ``I want to insure that no one need be institutionalized because there are inadequate community services. I want freedom to be a reality for everyone.''

Kelly Buckland is a voice of compassion, inspiration and reason and it is my distinct honor to recognize him today.

Mr. President, I wish to use my time by following up on the comments our leader has made with regard to the budget. It is budget time in Washington right now. Although many people are focused very heavily on the President's budget submission, the reality is that the budget is a uniquely legislative responsibility. The President makes a recommendation, but it is this Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, that establishes the budget for our Nation.

The budget that was announced yesterday and reviewed, which we will be evaluating in the Budget Committee today, in my opinion, is not responsible. In fact, it is an embarrassment.

We often talk about the fact that we want to avoid tax-and-spend politics in Washington. But this budget plunges headlong back into the very tax-and-spend policies of the past that have put us in the dire fiscal position we are in today.

The budget is a failure on the spending policy, it is a failure on the tax policy, and it is a failure on the additions to our national debt that are monumental, which it contemplates. It is a failure because it does not do a single thing about the most significant fiscal problems facing us, namely the entitlement problems and the entitlement portion of our budget.

Let me go through all those briefly. To do so, I am going to explain--this may be a little bit basic to those in the middle of budgeting, but I am not sure the folks who pay attention to those understand exactly how the budgeting process works.

This year we will have the first budget that exceeds $3 trillion in Federal spending. In rough approximation, that budget is approximately two-thirds entitlements and spending on the interest on the national debt. The other remaining third is made up of what we call discretionary spending.

Again, approximately half of that is our national defense budget, and the

remaining half is the rest of our nondefense discretionary spending; basically the rest of everything in Government more than our entitlement programs, interest on the national debt, and defense spending.

The problem, the most significant problem we face in our budget today, is the fact that the two-thirds portion I talk about, the entitlements and the interest on the national debt, are out of control. I often say they are on auto pilot, this spending in that two-thirds of our budget. That is growing at a rate that has often doubled, sometimes more than doubled, even tripled or quadrupled the rate of the growth of our economy.

It grows without a vote in Congress. Previous Congresses have passed legislation, and previous Presidents have signed the legislation into law that has established our entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs grow regardless of what we do in Congress. We could never vote again here in Congress and this spending would continue at rates that have nothing to do with the health or strength of the economy and which, as I have said, far ourpaces our economy. What does the budget before us propose to do about this? Nothing. Yet again we have no opportunity proposed in the budget that we will be battling over to try to address this incredible fiscal problem our Nation faces.

What does the budget do instead? It increases spending dramatically in the discretionary part of the budget as well as allowing the entitlement section of the budget to rage uncontrolled. We are looking in this budget at a $350 billion deficit, and that doesn't count war spending except for a small portion. It doesn't take into account the fact that we just passed a stimulus package that put another $150 billion of debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren without paying for it under the pay-go rules we are required to live by in Congress--in other words, $150 billion of new spending with no offsets against any other spending immediately put on the backs of our children and grandchildren in the form of national debt which they will pay back at a much higher rate as interest compounds on it over the years.

What does this budget do in order to try to deal with this increased rush for spending? It raises taxes. It raises taxes over $700 billion in the next 5 years. How does that happen? By the way, this tax increase America will face under the assumptions of this budget will occur with no vote in Congress. How does that happen? To explain that, I need to explain how the budget works.

As most people in America are becoming aware, there is a filibuster in the Senate that requires, on major policies where there is disagreement, essentially that in order to move forward, 60 votes are needed to get past the filibuster, to get cloture. Because of that 60- vote requirement on filibusters, it is difficult to either increase taxes or cut taxes because there is usually opposition to either move, and it requires 60 votes to move forward. But there is one bill each year on which we don't have to have 60 votes. It is called the reconciliation bill. It is a part of our budget process. Because of the way the law is set up, we can have a 50-percent-plus-one vote on that reconciliation bill each year. That is how the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were put into place.

Those tax cuts, as a reminder, were reductions in the income tax marginal rates for every American, with the largest percentage of those reductions in the lower and middle-income categories, reductions of the capital gains tax, reductions of the dividends tax, and a number of other very important tax policies that in 2001 and 2003 reduced taxes because we were able to use the reconciliation bill to do so. The problem is that the reconciliation process requires a sunset.

People around the country must wonder why we are facing a sunset of these tax cuts. It is because in order to avoid the filibuster and get the tax cuts put into place, the reconciliation process was used, which itself carries a sunset. So over the next 3 or 4 years, the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will expire. Once they expire, taxes will go back up in nominal amounts on every American.

All we have to do is to extend those tax cuts to keep tax rates at their current levels, to be responsible about tax policy. But what does this budget do? In order to facilitate the explosion of new spending this budget contemplates, it assumes there will be no vote in Congress to extend those tax rates cuts. What does that mean?

Let's look at the first chart. Over the next 5 years, that means taxes are going to go up by $1.3 trillion. The lower income tax rates people are paying today are going to go back up. The child tax credit, the marriage penalty elimination, the estate tax reductions, and the small business tax relief all go back up. One year of AMT fix is contemplated, but the alternative minimum tax which is now slamming the middle class will not be accommodated in any year of this budget except for the first year. There are other extensions of other types of R&D tax credits and other things that are important for our economy that will go up. When you have totaled it all up, this budget contemplates and provides for $1.3 trillion of new taxes.

Over a 10-year period, the number is even more phenomenal: $3.9 trillion of new taxes. That is how we are facilitating the increased spending contemplated in this budget.

As I indicated, we are now facing a situation where Washington has returned to the tax-and-spend policies of the past. If we do nothing, which is what this budget contemplates, entitlement spending will continue to rage, driving up our debt. Discretionary spending will be accelerated, driving up the debt. Taxes will explode. When those tax rates go up, remember, it is going to happen with no vote in Congress. We are simply going to sit back and let America have the hugest tax increase it has ever had by taking no action to protect the American taxpayer.

I was elected to the House of Representatives back in 1992 or 1993. Ever since that time, we have tried to reduce taxes to accommodate a better tax policy and tax structure in this policy. Every time we have proposed a tax cut, that tax cut was attacked as a tax cut for the wealthy. That simply is not true. As our leader said, whether you look at the alternative minimum tax, the marriage tax penalty, the small businesses, the child tax credit, or the reductions of income tax rates across the board for every taxpayer in America, these taxes squarely hit the middle class and every income category across the board. We often talk about that typical family of four and the several thousand dollars of taxes they are going to be asked to pitch in for this. But it really is not just that typical family of four; it is a single mother, a single man, a family with children, a family without children, a married couple. Everybody who pays taxes is going to see their taxes go up dramatically.

This budget is not responsible. It is not responsible on spending policy. It is not responsible on taxing policy. It is not responsible because it provides for no action to deal with the entitlement reform so pressing in our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today regarding the extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA. This program, which has been in place for approaching two decades, has broadened economic opportunities in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru as an alternative to illegal drug production and trafficking. With the current extension of this program expiring tomorrow, it is important that Congress is acting this week to extend the program for an additional 10 months. The extension should allow necessary time for passage of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, implementation of the Peru FTA, and continued commerce for Andean producers and U.S. consumers and importers.

However, this extension does not minimize the continued need for the timely advancement of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, FTA, which would deepen our two nation's important relationship, broaden market opportunities for U.S. producers and companies, and provide longer term certainty for Colombian exporters and workers that short- term ATPA extensions do not provide. We must do all that we can to maintain and improve our Nation's global competitiveness and relations throughout the world, and the U.S.-Colombia FTA is a much needed step in the right direction for providing economic opportunities for Americans through reciprocal trade treatment for U.S. products. For example, the U.S.-Colombia FTA would provide immediate duty-free access for fresh potatoes and almost all processed potatoes. Currently, Colombia's WTO tariff bindings on potatoes and potato products range from 70 to 102 percent and applied tariff rates range from 5 to 20 percent. This is just one example of the areas where the U.S. stands to gain improved access into one of the region's fastest growing markets through this agreement.

Additionally, as with all trade preferences and agreements, the requirements must be fully enforced. The U.S. is providing special trade preferences to these countries through this program, and with that comes a responsibility to comply with the standards and obligations set forth in ATPA. Our ATPA partner countries must treat U.S. investors consistently with current ATPA eligibility.

Mr. President, during the first full week of February this year, we recognized the third annual National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week. In addition to the U.S. Senate, close to 50 national, State, and local agencies and organizations and many Governors also participated in the awareness efforts this year. Domestic violence and legal advocates, education and child advocacy organizations, public officials and law enforcement have joined this nationwide effort to raise awareness of teen dating violence. I am pleased to report that Idaho students, under the guidance of the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, are among the Nation's leaders in this campaign. Members of the Idaho Teen Advisory Council, a coalition of Idaho teens from cities and towns statewide, have volunteered to be the first voices speaking out against dating violence and emotional abuse in their respective communities and schools.

As we look back on another successful Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week, I would like to call public attention to the following Idaho students who work to promote healthy relationships among their peers not just during the awareness week but all year long:

Sarah Marie Grigg from Pinehurst; Katherine Kilbourne from

Osburn; Tiffany Delphous from Elk River; James Walker from

Orofino; Benjamin Allen from Kooskia; Kyle Conger from

Kooskia; Samantha Larsen from Weiser; Megan Keller from Kuna;

Kelsey Eldridge from Boise; Katie Seale from Boise; Christi

Avery from Boise; Challis Lewis from Jerome; Bronwen Kate

Raff from Hailey; Erika Ramirez from American Falls; Monique

Betty from Pocatello; Natalie Milligan from Idaho Falls;

Jordyn Bochenek from Rexburg; Jaden Cook from Rexburg/Madison

High, and Haley Nord from Caldwell.

I proudly and publicly honor these students today for their selfless and committed contribution to reducing teen dating violence and emotional abuse in Idaho.

Mr. President, good mayors are those who leave the communities, citizens, and environment of the towns they have led in better condition than when they were first elected. An exceptional mayor is one who imparts a vision of what the community could be and works with the members of his or her community and outside interests to achieve that vision. There are examples of this across my State of Idaho, and the outgoing mayor of Bonners Ferry, Darrell Kerby, is one such remarkable example.

Darrell is retiring from public service after serving the citizens of Bonners Ferry for over 20 years, first on the city council and most recently as mayor. He is known to city employees and the public as a man of outstanding character, courtesy, kindness, and confidence. His leadership has been marked by a penchant for conviction tempered in small-town graciousness. He was at the helm in 2003 when Bonners Ferry was selected as Idaho's Most Friendly Town by travelers and tourists. He was instrumental in the revitalization of downtown Bonners Ferry through the construction of the tunnel connecting the downtown business area to the Kootenai River Inn. He promoted the construction of the International Gateway Visitors Center, improved parking in the downtown business district, secured improvements to and expansion of the city water system that included obtaining a critical Federal grant, led improvements to the city powerplant, and fueled positive city growth.

Darrell's participation in the community extends beyond his mayoral office. He has served or serves on the Boundary Regional Health Center Board of Directors, the Idaho Board of Health & Welfare, the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Energy Resources Authority, the Boundary County Economic Development Committee, and the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative Committee, a collaborative effort that I have been pleased to work with him on over the years. Speaking of the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative, Darrell has been instrumental in keeping my staff informed and involved as the stakeholders involved work to collaboratively manage the natural resources of the Kootenai Valley and begin restoration work on the Myrtle Creek Watershed after the devastating fire in 2003.

Darrell received the Harold Hurst Award in 2007 for exemplary performance by a city official and has contributed in an outstanding manner to the accomplishments of the Association of Idaho Cities.

I wish Darrell well in his retirement and thank him for his exemplary years of public service. The residents of Bonners Ferry and Boundary County, as well as the State of Idaho, have gained immeasurably from Darrell's efforts and dedication.

Mr. President, I am proud to be involved for a second year in the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Programme, an exchange program in which outstanding college students from Australia's top universities compete to serve as interns for the U.S. Congress. The program is in its ninth year of bringing the Washington experience to our friends from Australia, firsthand. In addition to working in congressional offices, the program provides students with a number of other opportunities and activities, including visits to historic sites, visits to government agencies, meetings with government leaders, and educational events.

This year, Suzi Allan, a student from the University of Canberra, Australia, is taking a 2-month hiatus from her communications degree to help me serve Idaho constituents. Of the program, Suzi says, ``The UCWIP has given me the unique opportunity to gain firsthand insight into the world's most influential government. I have had incredible experiences while working in Senator Crapo's office and have enjoyed learning more about the U.S. Congress. Working in the heart of America's political establishment is a fantastic experience that I will always remember.''

This year, I would again like to thank Director Eric Federing and his wife, Daphne, for their continued commitment to enlarging the educational experience of students in their home country of Australia. Free nations have a responsibility to work together to promote the liberty that have provided social, cultural, and economic success. Bringing young people together in their formative educational years promotes these partnerships for prosperity across national lines and highlights our Nations' shared goals and interests. I am pleased to be able to participate in this well-crafted and successful program.

I thank the Senator from Texas and my colleagues on both sides for allowing me this few minutes to have a break in the debate on the FISA bill to discuss a very important issue to the people of Idaho and, frankly, to the people in rural communities throughout the country. I rise to talk about the need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act of 2000 and to fully fund the payments in lieu of taxes, or the PILT payments, which we call them in Congress. I encourage my colleagues to make this overdue extension and funding a top priority for Congress in the coming days.

This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the passage of the act requiring the U.S. Forest Service to return 25 percent of its gross receipts to the States to assist counties that are home to our national forests and other Federal lands with school and road services. This program was put into place to compensate local governments for the tax- exempt status of national forests which we all enjoy. Otherwise, many rural communities that neighbor these beautiful national treasures are unable to fully meet the school and road needs of their communities.

One hundred years ago, the impact of large Federal forest reserves on neighboring local economies was discussed and debated on the floor of the Senate, as former Idaho Senators Weldon B.

Hayburn and William Edgar Borah joined their Senate colleagues in debating this issue which remains an issue today. However, the unfortunate reality of today is that in recent years, timber receipts have eroded to the point that the Federal obligation to our local communities is simply not being met. The receipts are not adequate for the needs of the communities and have been dropping off dramatically. Congress has acted in recognition of this to ensure that communities have the necessary assistance.

In the year 2000, I joined with my colleagues, Senators Larry Craig, Ron Wyden, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and many others to support and secure enactment of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self- Determination Act of 2000. This law provided the necessary assistance known as county payments to communities where regular Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management receipts-sharing payments had declined so significantly. The assistance has prevented the loss of essential school and road infrastructure needs in our local rural communities. The law also enabled very significant forest improvement projects.

The best solutions to natural resource challenges are achieved through local collaboration, and the more than 70 Resource Advisory Committees--or RACs, as we call them--provided for in this law have created valuable partnerships in carrying out projects to address a wide variety of improvements on public lands. These projects include habitat and watershed restoration, reforestation, fuels reduction, road maintenance, campground and trail enhancements, and noxious weed eradication. At a time when increased public demands are being placed on our Nation's natural resources, the RACs have provided the necessary cooperation to help resolve natural resource challenges throughout these local rural communities.

Additionally, payments in lieu of taxes, known as PILT payments, have augmented county payments to provide local governments with the means of offsetting a part of the tax revenues they lose because of the tax- exempt status of these Federal lands in their jurisdictions. PILT payments have supported community services such as firefighting and police protection in rural communities. Through PILT, the Federal Government partners with counties to provide public lands the stewardship and community services they need. Unfortunately, PILT funding is also not meeting this obligation, and we need to work together in Congress to achieve full and adequate PILT funding.

I am proud of the largely bipartisan effort in the 110th Congress to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and to fully fund PILT. Progress has been made but more needs to be done to achieve the Federal Government's commitment to these communities.

In March of 2007, the Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment which I cosponsored to the fiscal year 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations act to reauthorize county payments for 5 years with offsets. However, this language was replaced with a 1-year extension, with the final payments made at the end of December 2007.

In December last year, Senators McCaskill, Craig, Smith, Dole, Murkowski, Stevens, and Bennett joined me in urging the Senate leadership to attach a reauthorization of county payments and PILT funding to any legislative vehicles expected to be enacted before Congress concluded its work last year. Unfortunately, the reauthorization was attached only to the energy package which also would have increased taxes on domestic oil and gas producers to pay for incentives for renewable power, energy efficiency, electric vehicles, and other technologies.

I support incentives for alternative energy resources and the extension of county payments, but I am opposed to paying for those incentives by increasing taxes on our domestic oil and gas production. We are facing real and increasing constraints on our energy supply, resulting in higher energy costs daily. We simply cannot meet those needs by decreasing conventional energy production in the United States, which would further our dependency on foreign energy supplies and dramatically increase the cost for gasoline and electricity. This would negatively impact communities across the Nation, not just the rural communities we are seeking to help.

We need to again turn our attention to focusing on the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools legislation and increasing and achieving full and adequate PILT funding. It is unfortunate that the county payments extension was dropped from the enacted Energy bill and was not included in other legislative vehicles before the end of last year. However, today is another day. As we embark on the second session of this Congress, we have every opportunity to work together to extend and fund county payments and fully pay for PILT payments for students in rural areas. We must do this to prevent the closure of numerous isolated schools and to enable rural county road districts to address severe maintenance backlogs.

Time is of the essence for many rural communities across the Nation, and this important legislation impacts millions of students and their families in more than 4,000 school districts and more than 7,000 counties. I am hearing from Idaho communities that, absent an extension, personnel layoffs as a result of program closures are expected soon. Communities in more than 40 States are facing similar pressures.

Just as the economic impact of Federal land ownership on neighboring rural communities has not been worn away by time, neither has this Nation's responsibility to the States worn away. It is my hope that others will join me in working to meet this Federal responsibility by reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools Act and providing the full funding for PILT. This must be achieved in a timely manner that prevents the cutoff of needed services in rural communities nationwide and provides some long-term certainty to those rural communities.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend and colleague here in the Senate whom I have served with in this body as long as I have been in the Senate. Over the course of his 35 years in Congress, Senator Trent Lott has developed a reputation for strong leadership, a bipartisan approach to legislating, and an unwavering commitment to Republican ideals and values. As you know, he is the only Senator to have served as whip in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it was under his watch as a younger legislator that our Nation saw significant economic recovery and increased national security in the 1980s that had the support of those on both sides of the aisle. Over the years, from my time in the House of Representatives to my time here in the Senate, I have looked to Trent for collaborative examples of how to accomplish important, conservative goals such as tax reform, support for our military, and health care transformation, to name just a few. He has gained a remarkable, lasting reputation for being able to bring competing interests to the table, to work out successful answers to policy challenges--a quality that is in increasing deficit here in Congress these days. Trent has committed his congressional service to Mississippians to furthering policies that stand for America: a strong national defense, responsible and fair tax policies that encourage economic growth, and health care that puts patient needs above Government mandates. I am especially heartened that Trent remains unequivocal in his belief in second amendment rights.

Trent and I have worked together over the past few years on the Finance Committee, and I have been pleased to have his support on legislation that we have moved through the committee, legislation that advocates tax policies that do not penalize Americans for saving or investing. Trent understands that tax structures that favor small business investments, individual saving and investing, and a financial services system unburdened by onerous regulations are critical keys to a healthy economy for the United States, one that translates into a more stable global economy.

I have been pleased to host Trent when he has come to Idaho, and I have had the pleasure of visiting the great

State of Mississippi. Trent's retirement from the Senate, while in his best interest and in the interest of his family, will be a loss for the Senate and the promotion of conservative values here in Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my distinct dismay with the outcome of what has become omnibus funding legislation for 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008. H.R. 2764 is a sad testament to Congress's inability to draft and pass responsible Federal funding legislation. I am very disappointed that critical funding for drug abuse education efforts, crime victims and, more specifically, victims of domestic violence has been stripped from this bill. Idaho will lose more than 10 percent of Victims of Crime Act Funding, money, incidentally, which was never supposed to be subject to the appropriations process in the first place. Furthermore, funding for programs that help victims of sexual assault in 15 cities in Idaho and a program that has helped thousands of Idaho schoolchildren learn of the dangers of Internet predators have been eliminated during the conference process on this omnibus spending bill. Justice assistance grants have been significantly reduced. The Office of National Drug Control Policy Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was significantly cut, which jeopardizes important anti drug and, particularly anti meth media messaging for Idaho's youth. Although I have supported important funding along the way in these bills including veterans funding, border funds and other Idaho priorities, in my view, victims of crime and our youth are the clear losers in this legislation, and because of this and other substantial concerns I have with this, I have to vote against the bill.

Mr. President, I am proud to announce the recent appointment of my legislative fellow for 2007, Ms. Reta LaFord, to the position of Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico and Arizona. Reta has been invaluable in my office throughout this past year, specializing in Native-American and natural- resource issues. Her 20 years of experience working for the Forest Service in Montana and other parts of the West provided me with greater expertise related to how the Federal Government can successfully work with the tribes and other stakeholder groups on critical land management issues. She has particular sensitivity to the cultural concerns of the tribes in the West, and the USDA Forest Service will indeed gain from her knowledge and understanding as the Federal Government works with tribal governments in the Coronado National Forest to resolve important resource management challenges. Reta's diligence and thoroughness for the projects she manages will bring her tremendous success in this next chapter of her career.

I wish her the very best and thank her for her devoted service to the great state of Idaho during 2007. She will be missed in my office.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Coburn amendment. This amendment calls into question how we are going to modernize the FHA reversion mortgage program, often called the HECM, or home equity conversion mortgage program. I have long been a supporter of the program, and I have worked with a number of members of the Banking Committee, a bipartisan group, to remove the volume limit on the amount of reverse mortgages the FHA may insure. I especially thank the other Senators who have worked on this: Senators Dodd, Shelby, Reed, and Allard.

I understand the concerns my colleague from Oklahoma is raising about the need to further understand and be able to evaluate the development of the reverse mortgage industry.

Although I support the report that is in the bill that will help us to do that, it is very important to understand why this amendment is the wrong approach to getting a better handle on understanding reverse mortgages.

There has been a cap imposed on the number of reverse mortgages that can be issued by the FHA and by HUD. That cap has already been reached. So if we don't lift the cap while we are conducting the study, the program essentially terminates.

The reason we must not allow that to happen is the very reason the Senator from Oklahoma has been talking about: We need to have further ability to study and evaluate this program and refine its effectiveness. That is what the study is in place for. We need a program for the study to continue to be effective.

What does the report that we included in the bill do? It requires that the GAO help Congress analyze and determine the effects of limiting the amounts of the costs or fees under the program from the amounts charged under the program as of the date of enactment. It goes through a number of requirements; for example, requiring that we focus on the cost to mortgagors for participating in the program, the financial soundness of the program, the availability of credit under the program, the cost to the elderly homeowners under the program, particularly evaluating mortgage insurance premiums charged under the program, the upfront fees, and the margin rates charged under the program.

I went through that on purpose because I think it is important that we understand there are issues here about reverse mortgages that we are studying. But the issues right now focus most significantly on making sure that the elderly who are participating in this program don't pay significantly high or overly high upfront fees.

The program is very successful in terms of protecting the taxpayer. Over the next 5 years, it is estimated that not only will this program not cost the taxpayers any money, it is estimated to generate about $1.5 billion in revenues to the Treasury over the next 5 years because of the fees that are being charged as these mortgages are entered.

I think it is important to note, because it is going to be critical for the future of this program, and understand what the level of these should be, what the level of the mortgage premium should be, and have the ability to work effectively as we move forward in refining the program.

A reverse mortgage is a unique loan that enables a senior to remain in their

home and to remain financially independent by converting part of the equity in their home into tax-free income, without having to sell the home, give up title, or take on a new monthly mortgage payment.

The reverse mortgage is aptly named because the payment stream is reversed. Instead of making monthly payments to the lender, as one would do with a regular mortgage, the lender makes payments to the homeowner.

This HECM program was created to serve our seniors who are ``cash poor'' but ``equity rich.'' They need to have a cashflow and they have significant equity in their home that they have built up over the years. The majority of the recipients are elderly widows. The funds from a reverse mortgage can be used for anything, such as daily living expenses, home repairs or modifications, health care expenses, prescription drugs, in-home care, existing debts, prevention of foreclosure, or any other needs that the elderly may have.

As reverse mortgages have become more understood and the real-life success stories have been told, this HECM program has grown. There is a significantly increased interest in it. Clearly, this sector of industry is going to continue to grow as baby boomers get older and the consumers' acceptance and understanding of the program increases. Increased lender participation led to competition that has already resulted in mortgage fee reductions across the country.

The point I am leading to here is simply this: This is a program we must not stop dead in its tracks by simply reimposing the cap. It is critical that the legislation we put together that lists the cap, while we are conducting this study, makes sure that we better understand how to approach defining the level of support for the program and that it is able to continue. Rather, what the amendment would do is simply reimpose the cap and essentially stop the program. There would be nothing further to study then, because the program would be ended.

I think we can all agree we need to develop these kinds of unique and helpful programs for those in our country who have reached the point in their lives where they have significant equity but don't have the cashflow they need to meet their critical life needs. This program is one that helps them in a way that preserves their dignity, their ability to live in their own home, and assures that they have an opportunity for a cashflow that will enable them to live out their lives in a way that doesn't put them in a position of constantly wondering how they are going to make next month's payments.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, over the past years Congress has wrestled with the question of what was the appropriate level of regulation of futures exchanges and derivative markets. I have been very concerned about the potential efforts to change the manner in which we regulate derivatives or to impact the manner in which derivatives operate in the economy. It is critical that we strike the appropriate balance between protecting consumers and markets from trading abuse while ensuring continued growth and innovation in the U.S. markets.

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets, PWG, has played an important role in this debate by explaining why proposals that we have faced in the last few years for additional regulation of energy derivatives were not warranted, and has urged Congress to be aware of the potential for unintended consequences that would harm America's financial markets.

I have been repeatedly warned by our federal financial regulators that the importance of derivative markets in the U.S. economy should not be taken lightly, as businesses, financial institutions, and investors throughout the economy rely on these risk management tools. Derivatives markets have contributed significantly to our economy's ability to withstand and respond to various market stresses and imbalances.

In September of 2007, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, held a hearing to examine the oversight of trading on regulated futures exchanges or exempt commercial markets. Based on this hearing, the CFTC reported that the current risk-based, tiered regulatory structure has successfully encouraged financial innovation, competition, and modernization. However, the CFTC also found that additional oversight was warranted for certain contracts traded on an ECM that serve a significant price discovery function in order to detect and prevent manipulation. The CFTC proposed four legislative recommendations that were endorsed by the PWG.

In September of 2007, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission held a hearing to examine the oversight of trading on regulated futures exchanges and exempt commercial markets. Based on this hearing, the CFTC reported that the current risk-based, tiered regulatory structure has successfully encouraged financial innovation, competition, and modernization. However, the CFTC also found that additional oversight was warranted for certain contracts traded on an ECM that serves a significant price discovery function in order to detect and prevent manipulation. The CFTC proposed four legislative recommendations that were endorsed by the PWG.

It is for this reason that I decided to work with a bipartisan group of Senators who also wanted to address the appropriate level of regulation of futures exchanges and over-the-counter derivative transactions. I want to thank Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Harkin, Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Chambliss, Senator Feinstein, Senator Snowe, Senator Levin, and Senator Coleman for all their work.

I appreciate their willingness to work off the framework that was endorsed by the PWG and believe this allowed all of us to reach a deal. This was a significant concession to some Senators who have supported an alternative approach, and I would like to thank them for doing so.

In addition, this amendment extends the reauthorization of the CFTC, clarifies the CFTC authority over off-exchange retail foreign currency transactions, clarifies the antifraud authority over principal-to- principal transactions, increases civil and criminal penalties, and makes technical and conforming amendments. These provisions were also largely based off the framework that was endorsed by the PWG letter of November of 2007.

Earlier this week the House Agriculture Committee approved by voice vote a similar measure to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It is my hope that in a conference the House and Senate will reconcile their differences over the reauthorization period and Zelener related issues.

I strongly believe that Congress needs to reauthorize the CFTC and frankly, so that we can give this agency all the tools it needs to protect investors and promote the futures industry and preserve the integrity of our markets. Moreover, the Senate must act to confirm Walt Lukken as Chairman of the CFTC. He has demonstrated throughout this reauthorization process the strong leadership that is essential to managing an agency. I want to commend him, his fellow commissioners, and staff for all their tremendous work.

Mr. President, on October 9, 2007, a beloved Idahoan passed away. Lodice Grant was raised in Nampa and, after moving out of State for a number of years, moved back to Nampa for the remainder of her life. She was small in stature but strong in her direction and devotion. She was a friend of mine and, together with her husband of 51 years, Fred Kelly Grant, worked closely with me in recent years on the Owyhee Initiative. Before her children were born, Lodice worked as the assistant sales manager for the University of Chicago Press and the Johns Hopkins University Press. Prior to her move back to Nampa, Lodice became the sales manager for Johns Hopkins University Press, earning such an outstanding reputation that noted authors refused to have anyone but her serve as their principal assistant and adviser as they were publishing their works. In Nampa, Lodice raised two boys and dedicated much of her time to working for and supporting the Roman Catholic Church in Caldwell and then for the Diocese of Idaho.

When Lodice retired from the church in 2003, she continued her staunch support of her husband's work as legal counsel for Owyhee County; they both made improving Owyhee County the capstone of their labor and life's work over the past few years. Lodice was a pillar of strength for her entire family. Her influence for good and her acts of service benefited countless people who loved her and will miss her energy, friendship, and spirit. She tended people in the same way she lovingly tended her beautiful yard and garden--with tenderness, careful attention, and tireless devotion. I was blessed to know her, and I offer my heartfelt condolences to Fred, their children Andy and Jon, five grandchildren, and family and friends during this difficult time.

Mr. President, I am honored to publicly recognize an Idahoan who has received one of our Nation's highest military honors, the Silver Star Medal. United States Marine Corps SSG Charles M. Evers, of Lewiston, ID, was awarded this medal for ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Platoon Commander, 3d Platoon, India Company, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, Regimental Combat Team, 1 Marine Expeditionary Force Forward in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 8 June to 12 June 2006.'' Over the course of a 4-day firefight, Sergeant Evers led his platoon in withstanding and repulsing a platoon-sized enemy attack that, on the third day, included a massive truck bomb that burst through the entry control point at an observation post the Marines were defending. During this fight, approximately 60 well-trained insurgents attempted, but were unable to take the observation post held by Evers' 22 marines, a fight in which no Americans perished. Citing repeated decisive combat leadership under intense and sustained machine gun and small arms fire, General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, recognized Sergeant Evers' ``resolve'' and ``refusal to submit to the enemy's will'' in the Silver Star Medal Citation.

As you know, the Silver Star is the Nation's third highest combat medal behind the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross or Air Force Cross. Sergeant Evers' extraordinary achievement recognizes his unflinching commitment to our Nation, his fellow soldiers and the mission for which he was trained. Sergeant Evers' courage and skill rivals his humility: when given the Silver Star, he said, ``I was just doing my job. I'm proud of my Marines. I led them and they did their job.''

I am honored and proud to call Sergeant Evers a fellow Idahoan, and I thank him for his bravery, patriotism and commitment to and support of the military mission of the United States of America. Most of all, I thank him and his fellow Marines for continuing to defend my freedom and that of my family.