Floor Statements

Madam President, later today a great injustice is going to be hoisted upon the American people, and a great shame about this injustice is that a great many Americans won't even hear about it. If our friends on the other side--if their plans hold, later today they will call up H.R. 800, the horribly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which would deny workers all over this great country their right to cast a private ballot when choosing whether to join a union. I find it pathetic that at a time when our Nation is at war, every day additional illegal immigrants enter our borders, and energy prices are at their peak, our friends on the other side are turning away from the important business the American people sent us here to do and are instead insisting on spending the next couple of days paying back their union cronies.

If I am not mistaken, I recall reading that the energy package is the ``second highest legislative priority'' for our friends on the other side in the Senate. I guess that means that because we are interrupting that ``high'' priority, paying back the unions must be their very first priority.

Much has already been said about the denial of a National Labor Relations Board-supervised and protected secret ballot election, a private vote on whether employees want to be represented by a union. It seems to me that the Democrats' and the unions' real objection to private ballot elections is not the form of vote, a secret ballot versus card check; their real objection is ever since the 1947 Taft- Hartley amendments, the law allows employers to communicate with their employees about union organization. What unions really want is to silence the employer during a union organizing campaign through a card check process. Then the union would be able to persuade or even intimidate the employees so the union can be certified based on a card check as soon as the union gets to a majority, no matter how ephemeral that support really is.

What that means is that if the union gets 50 percent plus one talking to the employees, then that company automatically becomes unionized without a secret ballot election. But it is even worse than that. The way they have drafted this bill, it will lead to mandatory arbitration, which will result in the Government setting the terms and conditions of employment, even pension plans. That is even worse than the card check aspect, which is about as bad as it gets. The real key for the unions is that the process be within the union's control and before the employer has an opportunity to communicate with the employees. In effect, the unions want to force employer neutrality based on the employer's inability to respond to a union organizing campaign.

How quick must the quick certification process be to satisfy unions? NLRB statistics reveal that in 2006, 94.2 percent of all initial representation elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition with the NLRB and that the median time was 39 days. Apparently for union organizers, a little over a month is too long for them to maintain majority support, although it is important to note that under the current secret ballot election procedures, unions still win about 60 percent of all elections. That is fine as long as there is a balance in these programs, as long as both sides are treated fairly.

Also union authorization cards make it virtually impossible for employees to change their minds, which can happen in the privacy of the voting booth. Revoking a signed union authorization card is virtually impossible today, when cards are used to trigger NLRB-supervised elections. You can imagine how hard it would be for an employee to revoke a signed card under a card check process.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that union authorization cards are ``inherently unreliable'' indicators of employee support. Even unions themselves have stated that union authorization cards are less reliable than NLRB-protected private ballot elections. But the real reason unions seek card check is not because it is more reliable but because it can be controlled entirely by the union before the employer can address the union campaign propaganda. What that really means is that employees will be denied an informed choice.

Under current law, to convince employees to vote for a union, the union may use the pressures of the employee polls and interrogation. Unions may make predictions. They may promise benefits, whether achievable or not, and they may make false statements about the employer. It may well be that the labor leaders have never been able to negotiate the wages and benefits they promise will result from the formation of a new union. It may be that the union, in fact, has negotiated contracts with other employers in the same industry and geographic area that are less generous than the employees currently receive at the location being organized. The union's claims about the employer's safety record, its compliance with employment laws, its business practices, its executive compensation, its future business plans, and so forth are grossly exaggerated. If we silence employers, who is going to inform the employees of these facts? Certainly not the union.

Of course, employees may know well that in general their employer would prefer not deal with a union, but if, as a result of card check, employers are prevented from responding to a union's campaign misstatements, who will?

That is not a license for an employer to threaten, intimidate, or coerce employees during an organizing campaign. Under current law, employers are not permitted to threaten, coerce, or promise new benefits or threaten withdrawal of existing benefits. But under

current law, the employer can respond factually to the campaign-puffing of the union so that the choice made by the employees is an informed choice. Through a quickie card check process, that ability will effectively be denied.

So let's be clear: When down the road the union lobby offers to compromise by preserving secret ballot elections supported by a majority, even a supermajority, of signed union authorization cards but only where such secret ballot elections are conducted by the NLRB in a week or two from the date the union files an election petition, it will be no compromise. There are still a few of us around who remember the quickie election provision of the so-called labor law reform bill in 1977 and 1978. The unions then, just as today, were seeking to in effect silence employers during union organizing campaigns. Today, they are seeking that result by denying workers secret ballot elections. If they thought they could get away with it, unions would have Congress repeal employer free speech rights entirely.

Denial of employee secret ballot elections and denial of free speech vital to ensure an informed choice doesn't sound very much like employee free choice to me. It sure doesn't sound very democratic with a small ``d'' or even a large ``D.'' That is only part of it. If you get into the mandatory arbitration that will inevitably occur because they won't be able to negotiate, in fairness, union contracts, you are going to have the wonderful people here in the Federal Government telling not only the unions but especially the businesses what they can and cannot do. They will set the terms and conditions of employment by mandatory arbitration and, in the end, they will also basically determine things such as pension plans. This isn't right.

We believe in secret ballot elections in this country. We believe in fair processes. As I have said, the process works pretty well because unions win 60 percent of these elections. When they win fairly, that is the right thing. That may be a good thing. The fact is, under this bill, it stacks the whole labor process in favor of one side--the unions--and takes away the rights of employers to be able to inform their employees of the truth if there are misrepresentations by the union and, even if there aren't, to inform their employees how much better off they may be without a union so that they can make truly an informed choice. There are decent provisions in the labor laws that permit a reasonable, decent, honorable process.

What really interests me is that the trade union movement is demanding a secret ballot election process in other countries. Why would they demand it in other countries and yet deny it here for both employers and employees in these very important decisions that have to be made by employees under our current very fair laws?

Right now, the balance is a little bit in favor of unions. That is maybe as it should be. But at least it is a balance. Both sides have basically an equal chance of keeping unions, accepting unions, or denying unions.

Frankly, one of the reasons my friends in the trade union movement want this type of an unfair process is because they have been losing members. It is easy to see why. We are on an energy bill right now that may be the death knell of our automobile industry if we don't handle it exactly right. The fact is, we could lose the American automobile industry, run by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, if we don't handle it properly. We will go to foreign-made cars. That would be disastrous, in my opinion. But part of the reason is the unions have negotiated contracts that are so expensive that a lot of the companies just can't produce the high-quality cars at reasonable prices that they used to be able to do.

There are good reasons for unionization. I am one of the few people here who actually held an AFL-CIO union card. I came up through the trade union movement, learned a trade through a formal apprenticeship, became a journeyman, a skilled tradesman. I believe in unions. I believe in a fair collective bargaining process. But it ought to be fair. One of the ways you make it fair is by having secret ballot elections. In this particular case, this hoax which is going to be brought up on the floor and done in a very quickie way is not the way to go.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fuel Reduction using Electrons to End Our Dependence on the Mideast Act of 2007, or the FREEDOM Act. Senators Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, and I have been working closely together since the beginning of the year to author this very important legislation. We believe the FREEDOM Act will begin a dramatic shift in the transportation sector away from liquid fuels and toward the greater use of electrons.

For years I worked hard to pass a strong tax incentive package for alternative fuel and hybrid electric vehicles in the form of the CLEAR Act, which was passed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When I first introduced the CLEAR Act, more than 7 years ago, there were only two hybrid vehicles available commercially. Today there are dozens of models of hybrids from which consumers can choose.

Already, the move toward hybrid-electric vehicles has helped to reduce the demand for liquid fuel in this country. It has also set the stage for the next technological step, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. This vehicle would have an extra battery pack, recharged from the electricity grid, giving the vehicle all the benefits of a plug-in battery electric vehicle but also the freedom and fuel efficiency of a hybrid electric vehicle once the battery has used up its charge.

With today's advanced plug-in electric and the coming plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, most commuters will be able to make the round trip from home to work and back using very little or no fuel, relying instead on cheap, clean, and abundant electricity.

As you and many of our colleagues know, per mile, electricity can be much cheaper and cleaner than petroleum, and electrons are generated domestically and independent of the global oil market.

It is difficult to overstate the potential the change to plug-in electric vehicles could make in terms of our energy dependence on liquid fuels. R. James Woolsey, who is a member of the National Commission on Energy Policy, testified before the Finance Committee this spring. In his testimony, he cited a Department of Energy study that estimated that adopting plug-in vehicles would not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84 percent of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles. In other words, we already have the power we need to fuel the vast majority of the cars in this country right now, and it exists in the excess capacity of our existing powerplants. Because plug-in vehicles could mostly be charged at night, during the off-peak hours for electric utilities, this technology represents an elegant solution.

In terms of technology and industry focus, the United States is positioned to lead the world into the future with plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. The FREEDOM Act would help our Nation to take up that position by helping to develop the market, the technology, and the domestic production capacity needed to fulfill this role.

The FREEDOM Act's goals would be achieved through four strong tax incentives: First, a tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; second, for a limited time, a tax credit for consumers who convert their hybrid vehicles to high quality plug-in hybrid vehicles; third, a strong tax incentive for the U.S. manufacture of plug-in vehicles and of major components of plug-in vehicles, such as batteries, electric motors, and electronic controllers; and finally, a tax credit for electric utilities that provide rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles.

Freedom plug-in credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles that use batteries and that plug into the electric grid for at least part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids, and others. The amount of the credit would be based on the kilowatt hours of the vehicle's battery pack, with a cap of $7,500 for passenger vehicles. The same is true for heavier duty vehicles, except that the caps are scaled up for each vehicle weight class.

Freedom conversion credits would go to hybrid-electric vehicle owners who choose to convert their existing hybrid vehicle to a high quality plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. These credits would also be scaled to the kilowatt-hours of the new battery installed in their vehicle. Only high quality conversion kits, which are certified to meet all highway safety and emissions standards would qualify for a freedom conversion credit, and the credits would be available until the market transitions to commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles.

The FREEDOM Act also offers first-year expensing for companies setting up production capacity in the United States for plug-in electric drive vehicles and for major components of those vehicles.

Finally, in the case that an electric utility in the U.S. chooses to offer rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles, the FREEDOM Act would reimburse the utility for part of that rebate in the form of a freedom utility credit. The amount of the Government reimbursement would be based on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions for each utility.

I want to emphasize that like the tax credits available under current law for hybrid electric vehicles, the tax incentives in the FREEDOM Act are temporary. They are needed in order to help get these products over the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage, where economies of scale will drive costs down and the credits will no longer be necessary. Consumer acceptance of this exciting new technology is vital, and these credits will make it easier and more economical for consumers to choose vehicles that will move us away from dependence on less clean and more expensive transportation fuel produced by other nations.

The consumer acceptance of the hybrid electric vehicle has already proven a benefit to our Nation's energy security, and the plug-in hybrid will lead to an even more dramatic reduction in fuel use in this country. Years ago, I argued that the technologies developed to make hybrids possible would eventually lead us to a commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I stand by that argument, and I believe that by the time plug-in hybrid electric vehicles become mass produced in this country, we will be ready to use hydrogen fuel cells to disconnect these vehicles from the grid and begin a new age in transportation with much greater freedom of movement and freedom from dependence of foreign oil.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to throw their full support for the FREEDOM Act.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fuel Reduction using Electrons to End Our Dependence on the Mideast Act of 2007, or the FREEDOM Act. Senators Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, and I have been working closely together since the beginning of the year to author this very important legislation. We believe the FREEDOM Act will begin a dramatic shift in the transportation sector away from liquid fuels and toward the greater use of electrons.

For years I worked hard to pass a strong tax incentive package for alternative fuel and hybrid electric vehicles in the form of the CLEAR Act, which was passed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. When I first introduced the CLEAR Act, more than 7 years ago, there were only two hybrid vehicles available commercially. Today there are dozens of models of hybrids from which consumers can choose.

Already, the move toward hybrid-electric vehicles has helped to reduce the demand for liquid fuel in this country. It has also set the stage for the next technological step, the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. This vehicle would have an extra battery pack, recharged from the electricity grid, giving the vehicle all the benefits of a plug-in battery electric vehicle but also the freedom and fuel efficiency of a hybrid electric vehicle once the battery has used up its charge.

With today's advanced plug-in electric and the coming plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, most commuters will be able to make the round trip from home to work and back using very little or no fuel, relying instead on cheap, clean, and abundant electricity.

As you and many of our colleagues know, per mile, electricity can be much cheaper and cleaner than petroleum, and electrons are generated domestically and independent of the global oil market.

It is difficult to overstate the potential the change to plug-in electric vehicles could make in terms of our energy dependence on liquid fuels. R. James Woolsey, who is a member of the National Commission on Energy Policy, testified before the Finance Committee this spring. In his testimony, he cited a Department of Energy study that estimated that adopting plug-in vehicles would not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84 percent of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles. In other words, we already have the power we need to fuel the vast majority of the cars in this country right now, and it exists in the excess capacity of our existing powerplants. Because plug-in vehicles could mostly be charged at night, during the off-peak hours for electric utilities, this technology represents an elegant solution.

In terms of technology and industry focus, the United States is positioned to lead the world into the future with plug-in electric drive motor vehicles. The FREEDOM Act would help our Nation to take up that position by helping to develop the market, the technology, and the domestic production capacity needed to fulfill this role.

The FREEDOM Act's goals would be achieved through four strong tax incentives: First, a tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; second, for a limited time, a tax credit for consumers who convert their hybrid vehicles to high quality plug-in hybrid vehicles; third, a strong tax incentive for the U.S. manufacture of plug-in vehicles and of major components of plug-in vehicles, such as batteries, electric motors, and electronic controllers; and finally, a tax credit for electric utilities that provide rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles.

Freedom plug-in credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles that use batteries and that plug into the electric grid for at least part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids, and others. The amount of the credit would be based on the kilowatt hours of the vehicle's battery pack, with a cap of $7,500 for passenger vehicles. The same is true for heavier duty vehicles, except that the caps are scaled up for each vehicle weight class.

Freedom conversion credits would go to hybrid-electric vehicle owners who choose to convert their existing hybrid vehicle to a high quality plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. These credits would also be scaled to the kilowatt-hours of the new battery installed in their vehicle. Only high quality conversion kits, which are certified to meet all highway safety and emissions standards would qualify for a freedom conversion credit, and the credits would be available until the market transitions to commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles.

The FREEDOM Act also offers first-year expensing for companies setting up production capacity in the United States for plug-in electric drive vehicles and for major components of those vehicles.

Finally, in the case that an electric utility in the U.S. chooses to offer rebates to customers who purchase plug-in electric drive vehicles, the FREEDOM Act would reimburse the utility for part of that rebate in the form of a freedom utility credit. The amount of the Government reimbursement would be based on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions for each utility.

I want to emphasize that like the tax credits available under current law for hybrid electric vehicles, the tax incentives in the FREEDOM Act are temporary. They are needed in order to help get these products over the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage, where economies of scale will drive costs down and the credits will no longer be necessary. Consumer acceptance of this exciting new technology is vital, and these credits will make it easier and more economical for consumers to choose vehicles that will move us away from dependence on less clean and more expensive transportation fuel produced by other nations.

The consumer acceptance of the hybrid electric vehicle has already proven a benefit to our Nation's energy security, and the plug-in hybrid will lead to an even more dramatic reduction in fuel use in this country. Years ago, I argued that the technologies developed to make hybrids possible would eventually lead us to a commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I stand by that argument, and I believe that by the time plug-in hybrid electric vehicles become mass produced in this country, we will be ready to use hydrogen fuel cells to disconnect these vehicles from the grid and begin a new age in transportation with much greater freedom of movement and freedom from dependence of foreign oil.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to throw their full support for the FREEDOM Act.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce my legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, aimed at increasing refining capacity in this Nation. No one doubts that U.S. consumers and businesses will face another long hot summer of too high gas prices. There is general consensus among experts that a major bottleneck in U.S. refining capacity is a big part of the reason prices are so high. My bill will help resolve that problem.

As my colleagues know, the Government does not explore for, extract, transport, or refine oil in this country. Our Nation relies wholly on private industry to feed a very large domestic energy appetite. Unfortunately, the Government often stands in the way of industry in these activities. While many refiners would like to expand their capacity to refine oil, they face extraordinary costs from bureaucratic regulations that limit the available funding for such expansion. Because of this and other unfriendly economic factors, not a single new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976. In fact, we have lost nearly 200 refineries over that time period and now we badly need that refining capacity.

I authored a key provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which is currently providing some incentives for new refining capacity. However, due to budgetary constraints, the tax incentives in my proposal were cut in half during the conference between the House and the Senate. I am confident that if we had known 2 years ago just how much of a bottleneck the refinery shortage would present in today's market, the full measure of my incentive would have been enacted.

The Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act would restore those provisions I originally introduced, but which were later removed for budget reasons. First, it would increase the short-term incentive for the industry to build new refineries or to expand existing ones. As with the 2005 bill, S. 1591 would provide immediate expensing of 100 percent of the cost of new or expanded refineries in certain circumstances. As I said earlier, cost constraints forced us to limit this incentive in 2005 to 50 percent of expensing for refiners that were able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008. Under this bill, any added capacity would have to be placed in service by 2012 in order to qualify to write off the full cost of the expanded capacity in the first year.

The second part of S. 1591 would address the 10-year depreciation schedule for refining assets under our current tax law. This 10-year schedule is longer than the write-off period for much of the equipment used in other manufacturing industries, including the petrochemical industry. My bill would eliminate this disparity by shortening the depreciation schedule for refining assets from 10 years to 5. This unfair and unwarranted treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. I call on my colleagues to help me level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry.

I should also point out that this legislation would allow refineries to change only the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. Meanwhile, it would increase the size of our tax base by encouraging industry to build new refineries and increase capacity.

Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2005, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association said that an important solution to the energy crisis would be to ``expand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act [and] reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to . . . five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment.''

These changes are incorporated in the legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. Slaughter gave this testimony in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Every American has felt the effects of the storms on our energy sector. Refineries have been pummeled and, at one point, an unprecedented 25 percent of our Nation's refining capacity was taken offline. The rising gas prices hurt families' budgets, businesses that pay high travel expenses, and even school districts that must fuel buses to transport students. Once again, forecasters are predicting a terrible storm season this summer with hurricanes comparable to those of 2005.

We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. This legislation will help us deal with the energy crisis and make our Nation more secure from the attacks of Mother Nature and terrorists. I hope my colleagues will join me in pursuing the secure and independent refining program that this country truly needs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce my legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, aimed at increasing refining capacity in this Nation. No one doubts that U.S. consumers and businesses will face another long hot summer of too high gas prices. There is general consensus among experts that a major bottleneck in U.S. refining capacity is a big part of the reason prices are so high. My bill will help resolve that problem.

As my colleagues know, the Government does not explore for, extract, transport, or refine oil in this country. Our Nation relies wholly on private industry to feed a very large domestic energy appetite. Unfortunately, the Government often stands in the way of industry in these activities. While many refiners would like to expand their capacity to refine oil, they face extraordinary costs from bureaucratic regulations that limit the available funding for such expansion. Because of this and other unfriendly economic factors, not a single new refinery has been built in the United States since 1976. In fact, we have lost nearly 200 refineries over that time period and now we badly need that refining capacity.

I authored a key provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which is currently providing some incentives for new refining capacity. However, due to budgetary constraints, the tax incentives in my proposal were cut in half during the conference between the House and the Senate. I am confident that if we had known 2 years ago just how much of a bottleneck the refinery shortage would present in today's market, the full measure of my incentive would have been enacted.

The Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act would restore those provisions I originally introduced, but which were later removed for budget reasons. First, it would increase the short-term incentive for the industry to build new refineries or to expand existing ones. As with the 2005 bill, S. 1591 would provide immediate expensing of 100 percent of the cost of new or expanded refineries in certain circumstances. As I said earlier, cost constraints forced us to limit this incentive in 2005 to 50 percent of expensing for refiners that were able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008. Under this bill, any added capacity would have to be placed in service by 2012 in order to qualify to write off the full cost of the expanded capacity in the first year.

The second part of S. 1591 would address the 10-year depreciation schedule for refining assets under our current tax law. This 10-year schedule is longer than the write-off period for much of the equipment used in other manufacturing industries, including the petrochemical industry. My bill would eliminate this disparity by shortening the depreciation schedule for refining assets from 10 years to 5. This unfair and unwarranted treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. I call on my colleagues to help me level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry.

I should also point out that this legislation would allow refineries to change only the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. Meanwhile, it would increase the size of our tax base by encouraging industry to build new refineries and increase capacity.

Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2005, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association said that an important solution to the energy crisis would be to ``expand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act [and] reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to . . . five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment.''

These changes are incorporated in the legislation I am introducing today.

Mr. Slaughter gave this testimony in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Every American has felt the effects of the storms on our energy sector. Refineries have been pummeled and, at one point, an unprecedented 25 percent of our Nation's refining capacity was taken offline. The rising gas prices hurt families' budgets, businesses that pay high travel expenses, and even school districts that must fuel buses to transport students. Once again, forecasters are predicting a terrible storm season this summer with hurricanes comparable to those of 2005.

We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. This legislation will help us deal with the energy crisis and make our Nation more secure from the attacks of Mother Nature and terrorists. I hope my colleagues will join me in pursuing the secure and independent refining program that this country truly needs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will decide whether to end debate on proceeding to Senate Joint Resolution 14, which expresses the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General no longer holds the confidence of the Senate or the American people.

I rise to oppose this so-called no confidence resolution on both procedural and substantive grounds and will urge my colleagues to vote against ending debate. To paraphrase Shakespeare, whether or not this joint resolution amounts to sound and fury, it signifies nothing. It is nothing more than a bit of political theater which should be rejected out of hand.

Let me make two points about its form and two points about its substance before offering a few comments about the controversy from which it arose. The first point I want to make about its form is that this measure would express the sense or opinion of the Senate through a joint resolution. As opposed to regular Senate resolutions that require only Senate passage, joint resolutions are legislative vehicles requiring passage by both houses and signature by the President.

We use joint resolutions to propose constitutional amendments and some other legislative business, but this legislative vehicle is simply the wrong way to conduct non-legislative business such as expressing the opinion of one house. In a report dated today, the Congressional Research Service concludes that the form of this measure as a joint resolution is inappropriate for what it purports to do.

I think this is significant and the reason for this conclusion is obvious. If this joint resolution should somehow pass the Senate--which I certainly expect it will not--it will be sent to the House.

How on Earth can the House vote on the sense of the Senate? What could a House vote about the Senate's opinion on this matter possibly mean? By a negative vote, would the House be saying that what the Senate has expressed as its own opinion is really not the Senate's opinion? This makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, the House already has its own resolution regarding the Attorney General's service, and it is a regular House resolution.

The sponsors of S.J. Res 14 either do not understand or have disregarded how the legislative process is supposed to work. I suspect it is the latter, using this political ploy to force the President's involvement.

Either way, this body should reject it out of hand.

The Senate has not used a joint resolution in the past on the rare occasion when it has sought to criticize executive branch officials. Resolutions in the 109th Congress to censure the President or condemn remarks by a former Cabinet Secretary were Senate resolutions.

The resolution to censure the President introduced in the 106th Congress, offered by one of the cosponsors of today's joint resolution, was a Senate resolution. Resolutions in the 81st and 82nd Congresses demanding the resignation of Secretary of State Dean Acheson were Senate resolutions. The resolution to censure and condemn President James Buchanan in 1862 was a Senate resolution. Our only attempt to censure the Attorney General, back in 1886, was through Senate resolutions. This unprecedented use of a joint resolution would distort our legislative procedure, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

The second point about the form of this measure is that it purports to be a no confidence resolution. Parliaments take no-confidence votes for an obvious reason. In a parliamentary system of government, the legislative body's confidence or support is necessary for the head of government and cabinet ministers to serve.

For an equally obvious reason, the so-called no-confidence resolution before us should be rejected. This is not a parliament. In our Presidential system of government, the separation of powers means that the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature, and cabinet officials such as the Attorney General serve at the pleasure of the President.

Under the Constitution, the Senate's consent was required for the Attorney General's appointment, but our confidence is not required for the Attorney General's continued service. The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, not at the confidence of the Senate.

The separation of powers has been a casualty throughout the controversy concerning the removal of U.S. Attorneys that gave rise to this misguided resolution. As with the Attorney General--and with very few exceptions--U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

The U.S. attorney statute says that they are subject to removal by the President. Neither the Constitution nor this statute say anything about the confidence of the Senate for the continued service of officials the President has authority to appoint.

The separation of powers, a principle fundamental to our constitutional system itself, is becoming a casualty of partisan politics.

The brand new Congressional Research Service report I mentioned earlier could not identify a single resolution like this one even being offered in the past and this should not be the first. No matter what its substance, a joint resolution is inappropriate for expressing the sense of the Senate about his issue. No matter what its form, a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in an executive branch official is inappropriate in our system of government.

Let me now address two points regarding the substance of this inappropriate joint resolution. The first point is about the real purpose behind its words. Even though expressing a lack of confidence in an executive branch official is irrelevant in our system of government, we all know that the real purpose behind this resolution is to pressure the Attorney General to resign.

On the one hand, if its sponsors want to call for the Attorney General's resignation, they should be honest and do so. On the other hand, Senators certainly do not need a resolution--especially one as fundamentally flawed and inappropriate as this one--to call for the Attorney General's resignation. As a number of this resolution's sponsors have already done, with the rapt attention and constant repetition of a compliant media, Senators can demand the Attorney General's resignation any time they choose.

My second point about the substance of this misguided joint resolution concerns its actual content, the words themselves.

This joint resolution does not condemn or criticize the Attorney General for anything he has done or said. It does not call for his censure. And, just to repeat, this joint resolution does not call for the Attorney General's resignation.

In the past, the Senate has considered resolutions doing each of these, albeit through regular Senate resolutions properly suited to the task. But this joint resolution before us does not even contain a single ``whereas,'' clause offering any indication of the basis or any reason for what it says. Rather, this joint resolution speaks vaguely of ``holding confidence,'' as if this were an all-or-nothing proposition, as if this were some kind of a pass-fail test.

Even when parliaments take no-confidence votes, those votes are at least limited to the confidence of parliament itself. This joint resolution purports to speak about all the confidence of all the American people. But what could a ``yes'' or ``roll vote on such a resolution possibly mean? Would a ``no'' vote

mean that no American has any confidence in the Attorney General about anything?

Would a ``yes'' vote mean that every American has complete confidence in the Attorney General about everything?

Because neither one of those can possibly be true, a resolution worded this way is either seriously misguided or nothing but a publicity stunt. It is not focused on his job performance, or his leadership of the Justice Department, but is focused on the Attorney General himself.

A resolution asking for a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on something as vague and misdirected as confidence in a person attempts to reduce the multifaceted and complex to the unilateral and simplistic. In doing so, this misleading joint resolution turns a bit of political theater into a theater of the absurd.

The Senate should not even consider such a resolution evoking the image of Caesar listening for the chants of the crowd before giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Rather than purporting to speak for the American people, I think we should let the American people speak for themselves.

I found 16 opinion polls by nationally recognized polling outfits during March and April asking Americans whether the Attorney General should resign. These polls did not ask a vague, squishy question such as: Do you have confidence in the Attorney General? No these polls asked the real question behind the joint resolution before us today: Do you think the Attorney General should resign? An average of 39 percent of Americans said ``yes.'' Only one poll showed bare majority responding in the affirmative and, considering its margin of error, even that one might not show majority support for this result at all.

Frankly, I am a little surprised that the percentage of Americans who say the Attorney General should resign is not higher. My Democratic colleagues and many of their media allies, after all, have been working very hard week after week after week to persuade our fellow citizens that the Attorney General should go.

Daily front-page news coverage, Senate and House hearings, protests and lobbying by activists, blogs, columns, editorials--the Attorney General's critics have been pulling out all the stops for 6 months now. And while the joint resolution before us suggests that this aggressive, coordinated effort has deprived the Attorney General of everyone's confidence about everything, only a little over a third of Americans think he should resign. The Pew Research Center examined news coverage during the week in March when the Attorney General gave a much- criticized press conference. They found that the story about dismissed U.S. attorneys was the most reported story in the national media, with coverage jumping eight fold from the previous week. In spite of that Herculean media effort, however, only about 8 percent of Americans said this is the story they followed most closely.

These national polls are far better suited to measure what the American people think than the joint resolution before us, and my Democratic colleagues might want to consider another nugget of public opinion.

A USA Today/Gallup poll showed that while 38 percent of Americans believe that the Attorney General should resign, 40 percent of Americans believe that Democrats in Congress are spending too much time on this issue. Let me repeat that. More Americans say Democrats spend too much time on this issue than believe the Attorney General should resign. One reason might be that there is so little to show for the effort.

Just a few weeks ago, one of my distinguished Democratic colleagues said during a press conference that Democrats just know that U.S. attorneys were fired last year for improper reasons. How do Democrats know this? Because they have any evidence for that conclusion?

No. My Democratic colleague had to admit that ``we don't have a smoking gun.'' That is Washington political code for ``just take our word for it because we can't prove it.''

Just a couple of weeks before that, another distinguished Democratic colleague told a gaggle of reporters after a Judiciary Committee hearing that he ``just knows'' someone in the White House ordered that those U.S. attorneys be removed. Now, how does he know this? Because he has any evidence for this conclusion? No. He too had to admit that ``of course we don't know that''

It is truly ironic that this controversy involves prosecutors. Prosecutors must have some evidence to bring charges. Prosecutors must have some evidence for a conviction. I just wish that some of my Senate colleagues felt such an obligation either to prove their allegations or move on to more important matters.

We have been investigating and probing the removal of those U.S. attorneys for 6 months. Dozens of staff in the Senate, the House, and the Justice Department have done little else since the 110th Congress began. We have seen hearing after hearing, interview after interview, thousands of pages of documents, and even hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to hire outside law firms as reinforcements.

Democrats continue to authorize subpoenas not only for people who have not refused to testify, but for people who have agreed to testify, and even for people who have already testified. And after all that, my Democratic colleagues have to admit that they have no smoking gun, they cannot prove the accusations they continue to repeat. There are plenty of innuendos, caricatures, and characterizations. But repeating talking points, sound bites and cliches is no substitute for evidence.

This summer, Americans will see sequels of several movies in the theaters. Here in the Senate's political theater, we have already seen several sequels of the same movie. Last week's Judiciary Committee hearing, for example, was part five on the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys. Every one of those same sequels has the same ending. It is no wonder more Americans believe that enough is enough than believe the Attorney General should resign.

Before I close, let me say a few words about the controversy that was the impetus for this misguided joint resolution. As I said earlier, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. With very few exceptions, he may remove them for whatever reason he chooses. The President has the authority to remove a U.S. attorney to allow someone else to serve in that position or because that U.S. attorney's performance is, in some general or specific way, inadequate. Each of the U.S. attorneys removed last year had served his or her 4-year term and had no right to serve longer if the President didn't want them to. That means the real issue is whether these U.S. attorneys were removed for genuinely improper reasons, such as interfering with an ongoing case. After all this time, all this effort, and all this taxpayer money, there is no evidence for that conclusion.

I must candidly say, at the same time, that the process by which this administration set out to evaluate U.S. attorneys and replace some of them was bungled from the start. Proper respect for the office of the Federal prosecutor and for the individuals who occupy it would, it seems to me, require a more rigorous, disciplined, organized process than apparently was used here. The Attorney General has said as much and said he should have been more involved. I also think the individuals who were asked to resign deserve better, more respectful treatment. But there is a high burden of proof for those who say that a badly executed and explained process, even a poorly conceived and mismanaged process, was instead a nefarious, partisan, political scheme to subvert the justice system. Continuing to make such claims without coming close to meeting that burden appears to many designed, instead, to serve partisan political goals.

As I close, I ask my colleagues to consider one more set of polls. During the same 2 months, March and April, as they were asking about the Attorney General's resignation, national polling outfits also asked Americans if they approve of the way Congress is doing its job. While an average of 39 percent of Americans believe the Attorney General should resign, an average of 56 percent of Americans disapprove of how we are doing our job. Should we all resign? I think there are some people who probably would say yes. Far more Americans disapprove of Congress than believe the Attorney General should resign. I wonder whether spending so

much time on fishing expeditions that yield no fish and wasting time on inappropriate, misleading resolutions such as the one before us today only add to Americans' disapproval of our job performance.

In a statement last Friday, the main sponsor of this joint resolution said the vote on this resolution is about loyalty. I suppose he meant loyalty to the President, as if that were the only reason to oppose using the wrong vehicle for a misleading statement that has no relevance to our system of government. In a way, I agree this is about loyalty, but I think it is about loyalty to the Constitution, to the integrity of the legislative process, to this body as an institution, and to a fair and honest debate about these issues. If my colleagues are loyal to those, they will see that this bit of absurd political theater serves no real purpose and will only add to most Americans' already negative view of how we are doing our job.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this cloture motion.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute and bid farewell to my colleague and friend, my neighbor from the great State of Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas.

Craig brought a quiet dignity to this august Chamber. He was a Senator with the heart of a cowboy. We all knew that he would rather have been on horseback in the Wyoming prairie than in Washington, DC, but this was where the people of Wyoming needed him to be. Indeed, all citizens of America benefitted greatly from his presence in Washington,

Mr. President, I rise to commend our colleagues, Senators Gregg, Burr, and Coburn, for their introduction today of the Affordable Biologics for Consumers Act, S. 1505.

As my colleagues are aware, I am the original author with Representative Henry Waxman of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, a law which gave rise to today's generic drug industry. And so, I have a long-standing interest in making certain that consumers have access to affordable medications and that we provide the appropriate incentives for development of the new products that are eventually to be copied.

We must rectify the fact that there is no clear pathway for follow-on copies

of biological products, such as human growth hormone or insulin, to take two easy examples. And it must be rectified on a priority basis.

That the Hatch-Waxman law did not cover these biologic products was not a simple omission. Indeed, the market for biologicals really did not develop until after enactment of Waxman-Hatch in 1984.

For many years, I have worked toward development of a pathway for these ``follow-on'' products, but it was not until recently that I believe we have developed a public consensus that there is the scientific and regulatory underpinning necessary to write a good law.

Comes now the Gregg-Burr-Coburn bill, which must be seen as an important contribution to the necessary dialog on follow-on biologics.

The Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal addresses elements which I believe are key to any law we enact. First, there must be sufficient incentive for the development of biologic products. That incentive is tied inherently to an appropriate protection of the innovator's intellectual property. And the protection must be for a sufficient length of time to allow inventors of the molecule and others who have a financial stake in its development to recoup the substantial time and investment necessary to invent a biologic. Such protections are key for biotechnology companies, large and small, but also for universities that conduct much of the research on new molecules and the other investors who support that promising research.

Second, we should not create unnecessary barriers to marketing of lower-cost, successor biologic products. While the law must contemplate that the follow-on products be subjected to a rigorous scientific review to ensure they are safe, pure and potent, that review, however, should be flexible enough to make certain there are not unnecessary barriers to market entry for the lower-cost alternatives.

Third, past history should inform our decision-making when it can, but any law we write must reflect the emerging realities of today's pharmaceutical market.

And, finally, the law must reflect a careful balance. We all want consumers to have access to more affordable medications, and surely there is a need to allow patients to buy less expensive biological products. At the same time, we want to make certain that the abbreviated pathway for these follow-on biologics contemplates review of products which are truly follow-ons to the innovators' products, and not new biologics. This is tied inherently to the standard which is developed for ``similarity'' of the follow-on to the innovator.

As many are aware, Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Clinton and I have been meeting for some time to discuss the elements that must be included in any follow-on biologics legislation. While I have been working on draft legislation for some time, I have not introduced a proposal pending a successful conclusion to those discussions. It has been our hope, and it remains our hope, that our meetings will lead to development of a consensus document that will provide the basis for the expected HELP Committee markup on June 13th.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal will help inform the discussions of we four Senators, and indeed the HELP Committee's deliberations on this issue. Senators Gregg, Burr and Coburn have a proven record in contributing greatly to the body of law we call the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Their bill is a thoughtful and serious contribution and it is a significant work that this body should recognize.

Mr. President, I rise to commend our colleagues, Senators Gregg, Burr, and Coburn, for their introduction today of the Affordable Biologics for Consumers Act, S. 1505.

As my colleagues are aware, I am the original author with Representative Henry Waxman of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, a law which gave rise to today's generic drug industry. And so, I have a long-standing interest in making certain that consumers have access to affordable medications and that we provide the appropriate incentives for development of the new products that are eventually to be copied.

We must rectify the fact that there is no clear pathway for follow-on copies

of biological products, such as human growth hormone or insulin, to take two easy examples. And it must be rectified on a priority basis.

That the Hatch-Waxman law did not cover these biologic products was not a simple omission. Indeed, the market for biologicals really did not develop until after enactment of Waxman-Hatch in 1984.

For many years, I have worked toward development of a pathway for these ``follow-on'' products, but it was not until recently that I believe we have developed a public consensus that there is the scientific and regulatory underpinning necessary to write a good law.

Comes now the Gregg-Burr-Coburn bill, which must be seen as an important contribution to the necessary dialog on follow-on biologics.

The Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal addresses elements which I believe are key to any law we enact. First, there must be sufficient incentive for the development of biologic products. That incentive is tied inherently to an appropriate protection of the innovator's intellectual property. And the protection must be for a sufficient length of time to allow inventors of the molecule and others who have a financial stake in its development to recoup the substantial time and investment necessary to invent a biologic. Such protections are key for biotechnology companies, large and small, but also for universities that conduct much of the research on new molecules and the other investors who support that promising research.

Second, we should not create unnecessary barriers to marketing of lower-cost, successor biologic products. While the law must contemplate that the follow-on products be subjected to a rigorous scientific review to ensure they are safe, pure and potent, that review, however, should be flexible enough to make certain there are not unnecessary barriers to market entry for the lower-cost alternatives.

Third, past history should inform our decision-making when it can, but any law we write must reflect the emerging realities of today's pharmaceutical market.

And, finally, the law must reflect a careful balance. We all want consumers to have access to more affordable medications, and surely there is a need to allow patients to buy less expensive biological products. At the same time, we want to make certain that the abbreviated pathway for these follow-on biologics contemplates review of products which are truly follow-ons to the innovators' products, and not new biologics. This is tied inherently to the standard which is developed for ``similarity'' of the follow-on to the innovator.

As many are aware, Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Clinton and I have been meeting for some time to discuss the elements that must be included in any follow-on biologics legislation. While I have been working on draft legislation for some time, I have not introduced a proposal pending a successful conclusion to those discussions. It has been our hope, and it remains our hope, that our meetings will lead to development of a consensus document that will provide the basis for the expected HELP Committee markup on June 13th.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal will help inform the discussions of we four Senators, and indeed the HELP Committee's deliberations on this issue. Senators Gregg, Burr and Coburn have a proven record in contributing greatly to the body of law we call the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Their bill is a thoughtful and serious contribution and it is a significant work that this body should recognize.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about Reverend Jerry Falwell, who passed away last week. Reverend Falwell loved God, loved people, and loved his country. He not only spoke about what he believed, he acted on what he believed and worked to help people and to make this country better.

Jerry Falwell led a remarkable and inspiring life. He was born in Lynchburg, VA, the son of a nonreligious bootlegger and the grandson of a staunch atheist. This family background makes all the more real, some might say dramatic, his conversion to Christianity and his lifelong unwavering commitment to Christ.

In 1956, he founded Thomas Road Baptist Church. Just 35 people attended its first meeting in the local elementary school. Although Reverend Falwell became known to most for his national political efforts, he was in his heart a local church pastor and he led that congregation for more than 50 years, seeing it grow to more than 24,000 members.

Reverend Falwell knew that faith cannot be segregated from life and that Christ calls us to be doers, rather than simply hearers, of the Word. Reverend Falwell founded the Elim Home in 1959 as a residential program providing spiritual restoration and help for those battling alcohol and drug addiction. The home still operates today, just north of Lynchburg.

Proverbs 22:6 says to train up a child in the way he should go and so, in 1967, Reverend Falwell founded Lynchburg Christian Academy for children from kindergarten through high school. Four years later, he founded Lynchburg Bible College with just 154 students and 4 full-time faculty. Today, Liberty University is the largest evangelical college in the world, fully accredited with more than 20,000 students from around the world. In recent years, Reverend Falwell returned to this mission of Christian education and he was at work in his office when he passed away. His vision there continues to unfold. Liberty University Law School, which achieved provisional ABA accreditation in just 18 months, graduated its first class this year and a medical school is on the drawing board.

When it came to issues such as the sanctity of human life, Reverend Falwell once again put action to his words. He founded the Liberty Godparent Foundation in 1982, opening a home for unwed mothers while other evangelicals were content simply to protest abortion. I certainly agree that abortion is wrong because of what abortion is and does, but Reverend Falwell demonstrated that there is more to being pro-life than simply being opposed to death. He set an inspiring example, and today there are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics in America.

Reverend Falwell is perhaps best known for what launched him onto the national stage, founding the Moral Majority organization in 1979. This effort brought millions of Americans into the political process and made them more informed, more active citizens. In 1995, he launched a monthly magazine, the National Liberty Journal, which reaches hundreds of thousands of pastors and Christian citizens. The author of more than a dozen books over nearly 30 years, Reverend Falwell continued to write his own e-mail newsletter and columns distributed widely through the world.

Reverend Falwell certainly gained his share of notoriety for positions on certain issues or particularly controversial statements. That happens to people who speak out, especially those

who speak against the drift of the prevailing culture. Reverend Falwell chose to adopt a national profile and received a good amount of criticism for taking public stances on difficult issues. But he accepted consequences and was not above admitting and apologizing for his mistakes or, after more thought and reflection, adjusting some views and adapting to change.

Reverend Falwell was not nearly as easily labeled as some might think. For all the opposition he received from those on the left, some on the right criticized him for appearing to move away from the fundamentalist and toward the evangelical camp. Others attacked him for his friendship with leaders of the charismatic movement, speaking at conferences hosted by groups or leaders from different Christian traditions, or working closely with Roman Catholic leaders. His Liberty Baptist College has hosted speakers from Reverend Billy Graham to, yes, Senator Edward Kennedy. Through it all, Reverend Falwell stayed true to his own convictions while working with others on issues of common purpose to help people and to make our country better.

One of the most telling tributes about Reverend Jerry Falwell comes from a most unexpected source. After losing a libel suit to Penthouse publisher Larry Flynt in the Supreme Court back in 1988, Reverend Falwell befriended Flynt and the two appeared together in numerous media venues, visited each other, and even exchanged Christmas cards. In a column published just a few days ago in the Los Angeles Times, Flynt declared that while he disagreed with everything Reverend Falwell preached, he found that they actually had a lot in common. He wrote: ``The more I got to know Falwell, the more I began to see that his public portrayals were caricatures of himself.'' The ultimate result of their relationiship was, as Flynt put it, ``just as shocking a turn to me as was winning that famous Supreme Court case: We became friends.''

Jerry Falwell leaves behind Macel, his wife of nearly 50 years, his three children and eight grandchildren. His son Jerry has taken up the mantle as Chancellor of Liberty University and his son Jonathan had already been named Executive Pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church. Reverend Falwell's example, his legacy, is so much more than the controversial remarks, views, or positions that some want to emphasize. Reverend Jerry Falwell lived what he believed, he put action to his faith, he inspired and educated, he led and equipped. He was a pastor, a teacher, and a leader. He helped change countless lives and helped make our country better. For all those reasons and so many more, he will be missed.

Madam President, I wish to express my deep disappointment in the budget resolution conference report. It is a deceptive and defective declaration of flawed priorities that ignores this country's biggest challenges. If we follow this budget through to its natural conclusion, it will lead us from our current path of economic growth and prosperity onto a treacherous road to tax increases, economic recession, and needless pain for millions.

While there are many things to lament about this budget, I will concentrate my remarks on just three aspects of it--three features that I believe will hurt the families of my home State of Utah.

First, this budget opens the door to large increases in spending in both discretionary and in mandatory programs. On the discretionary side--these are the funds that must be appropriated each year--the budget resolution calls for an increase of $205 billion over what the President has requested over the next 5 years. And keep in mind, the President's budget represents an increase over spending in the current year. In fact, President Bush requested a 2-percent increase in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2008, but resolution before us represents an increase of 8 percent. This type of large spending increase hurts Utahns for years to come.

Mr. President, the national debt of the United States of America now exceeds $8,500 billion. Each U.S. citizen's share of this debt exceeds $29,000. Every cent that the U.S. Government borrows and adds to this debt is money stolen from future generations of Americans and from important programs, including Social Security and Medicare on which our senior citizens depend for their retirement security. Large increases in discretionary spending only add to this growing multigenerational problem and I am disappointed to see such a large increase in this budget.

Second, the budget resolution before us is woefully inadequate in the area of dealing with the tax problems facing America. Of most immediate concern, the alternative minimum tax, AMT, hangs over middle-income earners like a giant sword. Unless we, at the very least, continue to temporarily increase the AMT thresholds, we will see about a five-fold increase in the number of taxpayers subjected this unfair and complex tax. However, the budget resolution, as it does with almost every problem, punts this issue into the future instead of making the tough decision to fix this problem.

It is common speculation that the only way Congress can deal with this problem is to waive the pay-as-you-go rules that also feature so prominently in this budget. The speculation that Congress will easily waive pay-as-you-go rules is a joke, and we all know it. But millions of American taxpayers will not be laughing when this budget kicks in and leaves them paying the enormous price associated with the AMT tax, I am afraid.

This budget resolution also falls far short when it comes to dealing with the tax cuts that are due to expire over the next few years, including the so-called ``extenders'' that come to an end this December. The proponents of this resolution glibly state that the budget provides for the tax cuts to be extended. But it does so only if they are paid for with revenue from another source.

I cannot understand why some in this body do not see that the surges in revenue we have enjoyed over the past few years have come as a direct result of the tax cuts we passed in the early part of this decade. These have also kept the economy and job growth humming along. Does it not make sense to my colleagues that if we reverse these policies, this economic growth and job growth and revenue growth will all come to a screeching halt?

This budget actually contains the Cliff Notes version of Democratic economic policy--tax, spend, deny reality, and repeat. When the economy tanks, blame the Republicans and tax some more.

The third and ultimately fatal flaw of the budget resolution before us is also its most serious flaw. It totally ignores the entitlement crisis we have waiting for us just around the corner. Practically all Members of this body know and regularly acknowledge the profound challenges presented to this Nation as a result of the retiring baby boom generation, along with the corresponding growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We regularly reference it here on the Senate Chamber, as well in outside speeches and in letters to our constituents. We all know it is a colossal problem that is not going to go away by itself. Yet, instead of even the slightest recognition of this problem or even the tiniest movement toward a solution, both of which would be a start, this budget completely ignores it.

This is a travesty. I hear regularly from my Utahns that they want us to deal with these problems, and right away. Utahns are a thrifty and careful people who like to face problems head-on and solve them, rather than pawning them off on the next generation. I believe that it is simply inexcusable that Congress would shun this opportunity to deal with entitlement challenges at this time and I know my fellow Utahns agree.

Do my colleagues think that it is going to be easier in the future to begin to resolve our Social Security or health care system problems? We all know the answer to that. We all know that we should have started solving these problems already and that it would have been far less painful to deal with them a few years ago than it would be now. We also know that this pain will be greatly compounded as we wait to deal with these issues in the future.

When President Bush tried to get Congress to work on Social Security 2 years ago, my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, pretty much to a person, decided that they would rather turn it into a partisan political issue than join hands in trying to find a solution. I recognize that not everyone liked the concepts the President put forth. I didn't like all of them myself. But, instead of meeting him even a tenth of the way, the other side saw a huge potential advantage by shunning his overtures. Some say it paid off for them, but at what price the next generation of Americans will have to pay because of this decision.

Yes, we can keep passing budgets like this every year and keep burying our heads in the sand about the need to confront our impending entitlement problems. But we are rapidly approaching the time when we can no longer solve these challenges without a huge amount of pain and suffering and perhaps without losing our preeminent place on the world economic scale.

Mr. President, there are many more things I could say about the shortcomings of this resolution, but I will withhold and simply urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution. We deserve better, and our children and grandchildren certainly deserve better.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a special man who died in the line of duty in Utah--Uintah County Sheriff's Detective Kevin Orr. His wife Holley and their four children, Tyler, Kaylee, Jessica, and Ashlee, were in Washington, DC this week to participate in a ceremony where Detective Orr's name was added to the National Peace Officers Memorial. The Orr family had the opportunity to join with other survivors of law enforcement officers to commemorate their loved ones' lives and sacrifices.

I had the pleasure of meeting with the Orr family as they were paying respects to him through his addition to the National Peace Officers Memorial. Many from his extended family visited with me in my office, including Kevin's parents, Eugene and Claudia Orr, and Holley's parents, Glen and Dixie Hartle. Extended family members who were also visiting included Eric Hartle, Lisa Howe, Julie Luceor, Jolynn Orr, Jeffrey Orr, Larry Orr, Damon Orr, and Jason Pazour. Their loss is tragic, but their unity as a family is unbreakable.

Detective Orr sustained fatal injuries in November 2006 when he joined in a search for a missing 25-year-old woman. The helicopter he was riding in hit an unmarked power line hanging across the Green River and plummeted to the ground. Sadly, Detective Orr lost his life early the next morning as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.

At the time of his death, Detective Orr had worked for the Uintah Sheriff's Department for 11 years and was known for his dedication and commitment to law enforcement and the people he served. In 1999 he was named Uintah County Deputy of the Year for the example he set and the work he performed. He spent several years working with people in the Drug Court, making a difference in the lives of many who passed through the program. One young woman who had been a participant in Drug Court stated that she owed her life to Kevin. He believed in people and wanted to see them succeed and become happier, more productive citizens.

I was touched by what retired Vernal police officer Robert Roth said about Kevin. He stated: ``He was the caliber of person that lived his life as an example to all of us . . . We traditionally think of gun battles or car chases, but it's about service. Some of us are willing to die for that cause and some of us have.''

When I met with Kevin's family this week, I was touched by their humble, courageous spirits and their commitment to the legacy he left behind as a valiant law enforcement officer. It reminded me of a quote I have always appreciated by an unknown source that says: ``You make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give.''

Mr. President, Officer Orr was willing to give it all to help others. He truly epitomized the ideals of sacrifice and service. I know that his family misses him and grieves for their loss, but I also know that they can find great peace and comfort from the example he left behind. He was a valiant, dedicated public servant and his influence will be felt by many generations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad and Roberts in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act of 2007.

Some background on why this bill is necessary might be useful.

Among the provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, was a provision that instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment. It was a good concept--we have all seen the advantages to Medicare beneficiaries and to the Federal Government of competitive bidding in Medicare Part D. The government and beneficiaries are paying lower prices for prescription drugs as a result of fair competition.

At the time of the passage of the MMA, it was known that Medicare was overpaying substantially for certain durable medical equipment. The MMA instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment in order to bring market discipline to the purchasing process. It also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to establish badly needed quality standards for Medicare's suppliers of durable medical equipment and related services.

The purpose of S. 1428, the Medicare Durable Equipment Access Act, is to correct problems arising from provisions in the MMA that apply to rural areas and urban areas of low population density. The bill seeks to protect the access of Medicare beneficiaries in these areas to homecare equipment and services. It also will allow small businesses to participate in the program, but only if they meet the quality standards established in this legislation and can meet the competitively bid price.

The bill protects Medicare beneficiaries in three ways.

First, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to exempt from the bidding process rural areas and areas with low population density that are not competitive unless there is a significant national market through mail order for a particular item or service. The law also permits suppliers in rural areas to be exempted from the program's quality standards. Medicare patients must be assured that they are dealing with qualified suppliers and our bill assures them that they will be.

Second, the MMA allows the Secretary of HHS to exempt rural areas and sparsely populated urban areas from the bidding process if they lack health care infrastructure, a vague and subjective judgment. This bill defines areas eligible for exemption as metropolitan service areas with fewer than 500,000 people.

Finally, the MMA established a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of the program. The MMA exempted the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee from The Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. FACA was enacted by Congress in 1972. Its purpose is to ensure that committees that advise the executive branch be accessible to the public and objective in their judgments. This bill places this program under FACA.

This legislation also provides important protection to small businesses. The MMA provides that there shall be no administrative or judicial review for businesses participating in competitive bidding. Our bill provides for judicial appeal rights, giving legal recourse to businesses that participate in the competitive bidding process.

The MMA also directs the HHS Secretary to take appropriate steps to ensure that small suppliers have an opportunity to participate. Our bill specifies that such appropriate steps shall include permitting suppliers that are classified as small businesses under the Small Business Act to continue to participate at the single payment amount, so long as they submit bids at less than the fee schedule amount.

In addition, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to use competitive acquisition bid rates from one region to determine payment rates in another noncompetitive acquisition area. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to complete a comparability analysis to ensure that payments in non-competitive areas are fair. It requires the Secretary to publish the analysis in the Federal Register.

Finally, the purpose of the competitive bidding process is to save the Medicare program and its beneficiaries' money from the purchase of durable medical equipment, but a new bureaucracy must be created to implement the program. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to exempt from competitive acquisition requirements any items and services not likely to result in savings of at least 10 percent.

Twenty-five small suppliers of durable medical equipment in Utah have banded together to support this legislation and I believe they speak for hundreds of small suppliers around the United States. They support the establishment of quality standards for all suppliers of durable medical equipment to Medicare. They are willing to price their products competitively. They are used to providing personal services to their customers in small Utah towns. Their customers are also their neighbors. They all fear that their businesses, which are built on personal service, may be sacrificed to large suppliers from distant cities who cannot educate Medicare beneficiaries. A flyer in the mail may not be enough to teach a disabled diabetic how to use a walker.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which permits the potential savings from competitive bidding, mandates quality standards for all of Medicare's durable medical equipment suppliers, and protects small businesses and Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas and in low density urban areas.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Conrad and Roberts in introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act of 2007.

Some background on why this bill is necessary might be useful.

Among the provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, was a provision that instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment. It was a good concept--we have all seen the advantages to Medicare beneficiaries and to the Federal Government of competitive bidding in Medicare Part D. The government and beneficiaries are paying lower prices for prescription drugs as a result of fair competition.

At the time of the passage of the MMA, it was known that Medicare was overpaying substantially for certain durable medical equipment. The MMA instituted a bidding process for durable medical equipment in order to bring market discipline to the purchasing process. It also directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to establish badly needed quality standards for Medicare's suppliers of durable medical equipment and related services.

The purpose of S. 1428, the Medicare Durable Equipment Access Act, is to correct problems arising from provisions in the MMA that apply to rural areas and urban areas of low population density. The bill seeks to protect the access of Medicare beneficiaries in these areas to homecare equipment and services. It also will allow small businesses to participate in the program, but only if they meet the quality standards established in this legislation and can meet the competitively bid price.

The bill protects Medicare beneficiaries in three ways.

First, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to exempt from the bidding process rural areas and areas with low population density that are not competitive unless there is a significant national market through mail order for a particular item or service. The law also permits suppliers in rural areas to be exempted from the program's quality standards. Medicare patients must be assured that they are dealing with qualified suppliers and our bill assures them that they will be.

Second, the MMA allows the Secretary of HHS to exempt rural areas and sparsely populated urban areas from the bidding process if they lack health care infrastructure, a vague and subjective judgment. This bill defines areas eligible for exemption as metropolitan service areas with fewer than 500,000 people.

Finally, the MMA established a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee to advise the Secretary on implementation of the program. The MMA exempted the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee from The Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA. FACA was enacted by Congress in 1972. Its purpose is to ensure that committees that advise the executive branch be accessible to the public and objective in their judgments. This bill places this program under FACA.

This legislation also provides important protection to small businesses. The MMA provides that there shall be no administrative or judicial review for businesses participating in competitive bidding. Our bill provides for judicial appeal rights, giving legal recourse to businesses that participate in the competitive bidding process.

The MMA also directs the HHS Secretary to take appropriate steps to ensure that small suppliers have an opportunity to participate. Our bill specifies that such appropriate steps shall include permitting suppliers that are classified as small businesses under the Small Business Act to continue to participate at the single payment amount, so long as they submit bids at less than the fee schedule amount.

In addition, the MMA permits the HHS Secretary to use competitive acquisition bid rates from one region to determine payment rates in another noncompetitive acquisition area. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to complete a comparability analysis to ensure that payments in non-competitive areas are fair. It requires the Secretary to publish the analysis in the Federal Register.

Finally, the purpose of the competitive bidding process is to save the Medicare program and its beneficiaries' money from the purchase of durable medical equipment, but a new bureaucracy must be created to implement the program. Our bill requires the HHS Secretary to exempt from competitive acquisition requirements any items and services not likely to result in savings of at least 10 percent.

Twenty-five small suppliers of durable medical equipment in Utah have banded together to support this legislation and I believe they speak for hundreds of small suppliers around the United States. They support the establishment of quality standards for all suppliers of durable medical equipment to Medicare. They are willing to price their products competitively. They are used to providing personal services to their customers in small Utah towns. Their customers are also their neighbors. They all fear that their businesses, which are built on personal service, may be sacrificed to large suppliers from distant cities who cannot educate Medicare beneficiaries. A flyer in the mail may not be enough to teach a disabled diabetic how to use a walker.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which permits the potential savings from competitive bidding, mandates quality standards for all of Medicare's durable medical equipment suppliers, and protects small businesses and Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas and in low density urban areas.