Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judicial nominees should be judged on their qualifications and their judicial philosophy. On the first point, there is no question that Judge Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1990, when the first President Bush nominated Judge Alito to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest ``well qualified'' rating. This body confirmed him at that time without dissent.

Regarding judicial philosophy, the most important principle is that judges are not politicians. When we hear someone talk only about the results of a judge's decisions, chances are they are applying a political rather than a judicial standard. This is what we heard today on this floor from my Democratic colleagues.

The description of Judge Alito's record by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was all about results. This is how he put it: In case after case, Judge Alito seems to find a way to rule on the side of business over the consumer; on the side of employer over employee; and often against civil rights, against workers' rights, against women's rights.

It would be tough to present a more distorted picture of what judges actually do. Judges do not decide for or against the rights of groups. Judges do not take the side of one group against another. To suggest, as the Senator from New York did, that Judge Alito is actually biased toward certain parties, that he intends to take a particular side, that he, in the Senator's words, seems to find a way to rule a certain way, is just beyond the pale.

Perhaps my Democratic colleagues could provide a list of the side that judges are supposed to take in this case or that. Perhaps they could give us a rundown of the groups whose rights judges are supposed to favor, regardless

of the facts. It might be something like a rate card or perhaps just a big piece of litmus paper. That would make this confirmation process a whole lot easier for all of us. Nominees could just check boxes and get a confirmation score.

Are you for big business or are you for the little guy? Are you for this or are you for that? The facts do not make any difference, no matter how right the big guy might be or the little guy might be.

Politicians take sides. Politicians promote political interests. Politicians pursue agendas. Judges are not politicians. Judges settle legal disputes between specific parties by applying the law to specific facts. Without talking about the facts and the law, it is impossible to properly evaluate judicial decisions.

It is not enough, as we heard this morning, to toss in words like ``troubling'' since all that means is that the person using that label does not like the result. It is not enough to observe that Judge Alito was alone in dissent or that the Supreme Court declined to review a particular decision. Those would be marks of distinction of judicial courage if the Senator from New York liked the result.

If such results-oriented litmus tests are appropriate, Judge Alito's long record contains results to fit every political taste.

Judge Alito has voted on the pro-choice side in some of his abortion- related cases. He has voted for civil rights plaintiffs, against prosecutors, and even in favor of death row inmates desiring to file habeas corpus petitions. Imagine that. Judge Alito will likely get no credit from my liberal friends for these votes, but he should.

As I said, we must apply a judicial rather than a political standard to evaluate a judicial rather than a political record.

This morning, the minority leader, Senator Reid, also spoke about the Alito nomination. I would like to respond to a few of his points. First, he said the nomination was not, as he put it, ``the product of consultation with Senate Democrats as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.''

America's Founders envisioned no such thing but actually advised against it. The Founders gave the power to nominate and appoint exclusively to the President. The Senate's role is to advise the President whether he should appoint someone he has already nominated, expressing that advice through an up-or-down vote.

Some of my Democratic colleagues are fond of taking jabs at President Bush by saying that this is the third nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. If that is true, then he should get credit for consulting with more than 70 Senators, more than any President has ever done regarding a Supreme Court nominee.

The idea that consultations for the same position must begin all over again when the first nominee is appointed elsewhere is absurd.

I hope this will be a fair, honest, and thorough process that results in an up-or-down confirmation vote. I applaud the minority leader for saying this morning that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up- or-down vote. In the 108th Congress, of course, he had a different attitude, leading filibusters against 10 different appeals court nominees, along with Senator Daschle.

While the minority leader, this morning, lamented the fact that Judge Alito is not Hispanic, one of the filibusters he led in 2003 targeted Miguel Estrada, a highly qualified nominee to the Federal appeals bench. Perhaps race only matters some of the time.

Until Democratic Senators began filibustering judicial nominees in 2003 with partisan, leader-led filibusters, it has been Senate tradition that judicial nominees reaching the floor received up-or-down votes. While I hope the minority leader will help us return to that tradition, and I believe he may, he may have a bit of a challenge on his hands.

Although the minority leader claimed this morning that not a single Democrat has talked about filibustering the Alito nomination, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, told the Associated Press on November 1 that ``the filibuster is on the table.''

According to the Baltimore Sun on November 2, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, said ``I believe Democrats will filibuster this nominee.''

The Associated Press reported on November 3 that Democrats have, in fact, raised the possibility of a filibuster. Yes, Democrats are already talking filibuster, and I hope the minority leader meant what he said this morning and urges them to take a deep breath.

I urge my colleagues, the media, and the American people to apply the right standard to this and to all judicial nominations. It must be a judicial rather than a political standard when we decide these matters. It must examine the law and the facts of cases as well as the results, and it must be fair to this highly qualified and honorable nominee.

I have been kind of tough on my colleagues on the other side, but I believe everything I said is true. I believe it is time to get rid of the populism and start talking about what we can do to help America. One of the best things we can do is to confirm Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pension reform bill we are now considering. This bill is the product of a great deal of work by members of both the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. As a member of both of these committees, I congratulate the chairmen and ranking Democratic members for their leadership and hard work. It is not often that Senate committees share jurisdiction of an issue the way that the Finance and HELP Committees share the jurisdiction of pensions. Bringing the bill to this point required an unusual procedure where the separate bills approved by the two committees, which were quite different in many respects, were combined into one bill for floor consideration.

The resulting bill, which is before us today, is complex, controversial, and imperfect. It is also very much needed. Traditional pension plans, also known as defined benefit pension plans, are facing a crisis today. The number of defined benefit pensions is in decline. In 1980, around 40 percent of private sector jobs offered pensions to their employees. Today, only 20 percent do.

Since 1985, the number of defined benefit plans backed by the PBGC has declined from 114,500 to fewer than 32,000. Clearly, our economy, and the retirement options for our workforce, are undergoing rapid evolution. This is due to a number of complex factors, but prominent among them is the high expense of starting and maintaining these plans, and the uncertainty and volatility of funding them. The rules governing defined benefit pension plans are among the most complex of all U.S. laws.

Another factor in the debate about pensions is that the American workforce is changing in a fundamental way. No longer is the idea of going to work for one employer and remaining with that company for one's entire career considered the norm. Increasingly, workers are mobile and find themselves changing companies and even careers several times over the course of their work lives. For these workers, the traditional pension plan is not necessarily the ideal. For many such workers, and for most companies in younger industries, hybrid pension plans are more beneficial.

Unfortunately, these hybrid pension plans are under a legal and a legislative cloud today. So what could be a pretty good answer in today's world to the problems of cost, complexity, and inflexibility of a defined benefit plan has been practically halted by legal challenges and by political controversy over how to best clarify the status of hybrid plans.

One of the biggest concerns, however, is that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) is under increasing financial strain as more and more companies with defined benefit plans have defaulted on their pension obligations and left this agency to carry the load. Just yesterday, the PBGC released in its annual report that it had only $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in liabilities. In addition, the report showed the PBGC's exposure to losses from pension plans sponsored by financially weak employers rose to $108 billion from $96 billion the year before.

When I earlier said this pension bill is complex, controversial, and imperfect, it is because, to be effective, the bill must walk the very narrow path between two important public policy objectives. On the one hand, we need to ensure that when an employer establishes a pension plan, and makes inherent promises to its workers, it provides the funds necessary to secure those commitments. Failure to do so does great harm to the millions of employees and their families who depend on those pensions for a secure retirement. It also does harm to our economy, and it puts the PBGC, and possibly the American taxpayer, at great risk.

On the other hand, we must not forget that employers have no legal obligation to offer such pension plans to their employees. These benefits are voluntary, and they must stay so. The Congress has an obligation to ensure that the pension laws provide rational and sensible rules that encourage employers to offer these benefits to their employees. This means they should be understandable, predictable, and easy to administer. If we place unreasonable or overly aggressive requirements on employers, many or most will simply terminate their pension plans, leaving employees without the benefits they might have had.

I believe we must be careful to ensure that pension plans that are currently fully funded and are sponsored by strong employers are not weakened inadvertently by the reforms in this legislation. However, this is not as easy to accomplish at it may sound.

I believe the bill before us goes a long way toward accomplishing the goals of strengthening the pension system, shoring up the PBGC, and not discouraging employers from staying in the system. However, it has certain provisions that, in my view, may not lead us in the direction we need to go. I hope that as the bill goes to conference that it can be further improved.

More specifically, I remain concerned about the provision in the bill that would require certain plan sponsors with credit ratings that have fallen below investment grade to fund their plans faster than they would otherwise have to do. While this provision has improved from its first version in the Finance Committee, I believe it is still too onerous.

I am also very concerned about the impact of this bill on the struggling airline industry. We simply must provide relief to the airlines in funding their pension obligations or many will have to turn their obligations over to the PBGC. Therefore, I am supporting the amendment of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and I hope our colleagues will also support it.

There is much to be said in favor of this combined bill. I am very pleased to see that many of the defined contribution provisions that the Finance Committee has long worked on getting enacted have made their way into this bill. I am also glad that certain protections were added for the multiple employer pensions plans that are very important to many of the electrical and telephone cooperatives that are common in many rural States, including my home State of Utah.

I am also pleased to see that the managers' substitute amendment also includes a provision on which I have been working for several years now with the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Finance Committee. This provision, which is important to many associations around the Nation, including the Utah Auto Dealers Association, ensures that they will not unfairly have to give up their health plans, upon which many employers and their families now rely.

And I am happy that we have finally included language that makes it much easier for firms to enroll automatically new employees into a firm's 401(k) plans. One thing we know about human behavior is that inertia is a powerful force--change of any sort can be difficult for even the best of us. The beauty of automatic enrollment is that it uses this inertia to our advantage. The firms that have used automatic enrollment thus far have reported vastly higher savings rates, and employees have been quite pleased with the result.

While nearly everyone on both sides of the aisle supports making automatic enrollment easier for firms, we differ on just how much easier we should make it. There have been a number of proposals that would have made it much easier for firms that offer automatic enrollment of new employees to meet the convoluted pension distribution requirements that deter many smaller firms from even offering 401(k) plans. Unfortunately, the version currently embodied in this bill does not, in

my view, adequately address this problem. Still, half a loaf is better than none, and I welcome anything that clears the way for firms to offer automatic enrollment.

I would like to take another couple of minutes to address more fully the issue of hybrid pension plans, which combine elements of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. I think that corporate America is recognizing the importance of these plans. At the same time, there is a cloud of legal uncertainty hanging over them. My hope is that we address this uncertainty in the conference.

Although the defined benefit pension system has helped generations of Americans achieve retirement security, we have witnessed a decline in these plans during the last several years, as I mentioned. While the modern workforce remains interested in the security of employer funding and Federal insurance guarantees, it also demands portability and a greater level of control regarding retirement benefits. Given these diverse criteria it is easy to see why so-called hybrid pension plans have become so popular. These cash-balance and pension equity plans, in which over 9 million Americans currently participate, incorporate the attractive features of a defined contribution plan while offering much of the security associated with traditional defined benefit plans.

Hybrid pension plans are nothing new. In 1991 the Treasury issued regulations that described a safe harbor testing method for cash balance pension plans under nondiscrimination rules. Five years later, the IRS issued Notice 96-8 describing the structure and operation of cash balance pension plans as well as citing the previous safe harbor rule. This notice and prior regulation stood as the official authority from Treasury and IRS on how a cash balance pension plan should be designed and operated. Many plan sponsors even received favorable determination letters from the IRS that their converted cash balance pension plans met all requirements to be qualified to preferred tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, including all relevant nondiscrimination requirements. More recently, in 2002 the Treasury issued proposed regulations that clearly established hybrid pension plans and plan conversions as nondiscriminatory against older workers. Most employers who made these plan conversions did so as part of a good-faith effort to protect the retirement security of their employees.

Although many courts have ruled that these plans do not discriminate based on age, they continue to come under attack. The bill we are currently considering does a good job of establishing the principles for evaluating whether post-effective date conversions of a traditional defined benefit pension plan to a hybrid pension plan are permissible. However, the bill does not clarify that employers who previously adopted hybrid pension plans in good faith, based on generally accepted legal principles and in reliance on guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service, should not be disadvantaged compared to employers who adopt hybrid pension plans in the future.

If Congress does not clarify the legality of pre-effective date hybrid pension plans and plan conversions, it is likely that these plans will be abandoned in favor of programs that shift investment risk for retirement savings back to participants, such as 401(k) plans. The uncertain climate for hybrid pension plans has already had a profound adverse effect on defined benefit plan formation and continuation. I hope that in conference we can consider some moderate and fair retroactive provisions in order to give some legal clarity to these plans.

This bill should not be considered the final word on this issue. It represents good progress, and I am encouraged that those who had placed holds on its consideration have agreed to release them. By approving this legislation, we can move into conference where I believe we can improve the bill even further.

Again, I thank those who have worked so hard on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it today.

Mr. President, I came over to make some remarks in morning business until I heard the remarks of my colleagues on the other side. I have to say that the windfall profits tax that we enacted a number of years ago, I voted against it. It did not work. It was a disaster. I think this would be an equal disaster. A lot of these folks on the other side are the people who today own a lot of drilling offshore where we know billions of gallons of oil are, who have fought against ANWR where they have estimated at least 6 to 8 billion barrels of oil lie ready to be recovered from a plot of ground as small as 2,000 acres--equal to the Dulles airport acreage.

And you could go on and on about how they have made it almost impossible to drill, to build refineries, to do the things that have to be done to bring oil and gas prices down--almost every argument that has come from the other side. And now we are here trying to tax the companies that now are making very good profits, the very companies that are considering how can they find more oil and gas, how can they drill offshore, how can they drill up in Alaska where there is a lot of oil and gas, and how can we duplicate what they have done up there in Canada with their tar sands. Canada has not been stupid about recovery, and it has cost billions of dollars of investment by oil companies to do what they are doing.

Today Canada is producing a million barrels of oil a day, and before too long that number will grow to 3.5 million barrels a day, mostly from their tar sands. I might add that they now have the second largest oil reserves in the world today, second only to Saudi Arabia, and that is 1 million barrels a day from the tar sands and approximately 1 million barrels from other energy sources. We have just as big of a resource in the U.S., but our companies can not get access to it. It's becoming too difficult to get the necessary permits which are often completely bottled up by the environmentalists, even in areas where drilling would be environmentally safe.

I think the height of stupidity was locking up the Saudi Arabia of coal, which happens to be in Utah, by creating the Grand Staircase- Escalante Monument. President Clinton closed up 60 miles south of Utah, an area larger than the Grand Canyon, without having talked or consulted with one political official in all of Utah--not the Governor, not Members of the Senate or House of Representatives, not even Democrats in Utah. That coal is high-moisture, low-sulfur content, environmentally sound coal, which, if blended with the less clean coal of the east and the central part of our country would save billions of tons of particulates in the air. The arguments for closing off that huge source of clean energy are very similar to the arguments being made today by my two illustrious colleagues, for whom I care a great deal.

It is wonderful for some to get out here and beat up on the big old oil companies. It was just yesterday when I was chatting with one of the largest oil companies, and more than anything, they want to invest in new development and take advantage of incentives we put into the Energy bill. They want to develop the tar sands and oil shale

in our country, we are 15 to 20 years behind Canada on this, so that we can lower the price of oil and gas in this country, so that our good friends in the eastern and northeastern part of this country do not have to pay the high prices they are paying. These oil companies are often not able, even when they make these profits, to drill because they cannot get permits and, in some areas, cannot even drill where we know there are billions of barrels of oil that would lower the price of oil and gas.

That is why I have found this a little hard to take, as I have been sitting here--I didn't plan on talking on this issue. But I am one of those who put into the Energy bill incentives to develop our tar sands and oil shale, our geothermal, our natural gas, and to develop more refineries because over the last 35 years, we have lost 200 refineries and only built 1. Why? Because it is so doggone hard to get approvals to build refineries in this country.

We can't even produce the amount of refined petroleum we need for our automobiles on the road now. Why? Because we have gone so far to the left wing extreme that we cannot develop our own resources, even in an environmentally sound way.

Also, in that bill I put in the CLEAR Act, which provides incentives for alternative fuel vehicles, alternative fuels, alternative fuel stations, alternative fuel cells. Given some time and some investments, I believe we can solve an awful lot of the pollution problems in our country the right way, through incentives, not by punishing the very companies that make our country work. We need to give incentives and government cooperation so companies can get permits to develop more oil and gas, so that we could bring down the price of oil and gas. But every time they want to do that, every time one of these companies wants to do something like that, guess who is throwing up every roadblock they possibly can and all in the interest of politics, in my opinion, which I think is the sum and total of most of the remarks made today on the floor by my two friends and colleagues--and they are friends--on the other side.

I listened to the Senator from North Dakota, and I will be happy to take a question. I didn't come here to talk about this, but I got a little bit upset listening to what I consider to be political talk, which we have all too much of on this floor.

Everyday we have people coming around here giving these populous talks about how we have to bring oil and gas prices down, and yet they make it almost impossible to do it. Come on, America, wake up. I am sick of it. I used to be in the oil business. I know how hard it is.

Let me tell you, in eastern Utah, western Colorado, and southern Wyoming, we have upwards estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil, 1 trillion or more of which they say is recoverable, at probably $30 or less per barrel. But developing that oil will take billions of dollars of investment and all kinds of bureaucratic anguish to get the permitting and other steps necessary to go in and do it. And we are 20 years behind Canada. They didn't allow this type of talk to stop them from developing their tar sands.

I talked to a company yesterday who said they may be willing to put a tremendous multibillion-dollar investment in there, and when industry is through, it will be over $100 billion, close to $120 billion invested. Mr. President, where do we think this money is going to come from? By the way, that 1 trillion barrels of oil in eastern Utah, southern Wyoming, and western Colorado is more recoverable oil than all the proven reserves in the Middle East. But it is going to cost more to come out because it is a different form of extraction. To do it costs billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment over the years. But it will save our country if we have the wisdom and the fortitude and the foresight to go and do it.

I might also add that we haven't built a refinery, as I have said, in 35 years--1 refinery and we have lost 200 of them. Why? Because it is so difficult to get anything done because of the so-called environmentalists, and I have to call some of them extreme environmentalists because true environmentalists should want us to get some of the things I put into the Energy bill.

I don't believe that oil companies should make excessive profits that they are unwilling to use for furthering their business interests either, but if they are given a chance to use them and go out and get more oil for us and more gas for us, they are going to do it. But every step of the way, they are stymied by the very people here who have been complaining.

I am personally tired of it. I feel sorry for the people in the Northeast. I feel sorry for the people in Utah. Our folks are paying more than I wish they had to pay for gas. I feel sorry for those over in Europe, where they have paid more than $4 a gallon for gasoline now for decades, some as high as $6 a gallon for gasoline because they were overrun by the same type of philosophical talk. And that is all it is, talk that we get on this floor.

I can tell you, the American people have to wake up. This populist talk is not what is going to get us oil and gas, nor is it going to bring prices down, nor are rebates going to help our people over the long run. What will help our people is to develop, in environmentally sound ways, resources that will help get us out of these difficulties.

As for that Saudi Arabia of coal I mentioned in the Kaiparowitz Plateau in southern Utah, we now have the capacity to take that high- moisture, low-sulfur content, environmentally sound coal, and develop clean-burn diesel and clean-burn jet fuel. We have that ability today, and it is locked up because of what I consider to be a political stunt that we are stuck with, for now. It wasn't on this side of the floor or this administration that caused that political stunt.

I think it is time to get rid of the populist talk and start talking reality. It is nice to come out and beat up the oil companies who are making great profits, but who would use those profits if they could to develop more of their products.

I will be happy to.

I would be interested in the corrections because I don't believe you can find what I said to be false.

No, it wasn't wrong. I lived in this industry. I understand it. If you have a question----

OK.

Do you have a question?

First of all, BusinessWeek is not a conservative publication. Anything that is not liberal you consider conservative on that side. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, I have been making a pretty good case that it is pretty tough to get permits and get past the environmentalist roadblocks. It is in my State and every other State that has energy. Thirdly, I mentioned the coal that has been locked up because of the machinations of the Clinton administration, the last administration.

Fourthly, I don't think it is even plausible that the oil companies, if they can get permits fast enough to do it, would not invest in more production, since that is their business. Some of them are going to China, to Russia, and elsewhere to make these profits because they are forced to.

I think it is very unfair for my colleagues, as much as I admire you, it is very unfair to come on this floor and brand the oil companies as a bunch of antipatriotic companies.

Let me finish with my remarks, and I will yield the floor. I have been in this business. I know doggone well what it takes and how much it takes and how much it costs to develop oil and gas. I also know how difficult it is to get past the roadblocks environmentalists put up.

I get tired of the populist rhetoric on the other side of the aisle that never gives any consideration to how difficult it is to be in this business. I don't have any financial interest in oil. All I can say is that I have been there, I know what it is like. Of course, these companies are out to make money, and if they have a business plan to buy back their stock, good for them. There are a lot of companies that are buying back their stock so they can compete.

I feel strongly about this, which is why I fought for incentives in the Energy bill--and I fought hard to get them there--to develop the tar sands and oil shale, to develop geothermal, to develop refineries. We hear all this rhetoric about how these oil companies are making all this big money and not building refineries, tell me where they can build them; tell me where they don't have to spend billions of dollars to build a refinery or hundreds of millions to build a refinery, all because of what many people would argue are pseudo-environmental arguments and delays.

We have gone so far on that side that we made it almost impossible for us to develop our own natural resources for our own benefit.

I don't like any company that gouges, and if these companies are gouging, then let's do something about it. But let's not take away, as we commonly do around here, their ability to be able to go out and find oil, drill for oil and do what I think both of my colleagues sincerely want them to do, to go out and produce energy.

You talk to any oil company executive and talk about how difficult it is to get permits and to do what has to be done in this country, it is amazing.

I again point out--and it was not false--the fact that I chatted with one of the major oil companies recently that is going to go into the tar sands and oil shale at the tristate area, and their estimate is that it could cost industry as much as 120 billion bucks. That is a lot of money even for the oil companies. But, boy, would that save our country.

But it will never happen if we keep doing this type of stuff on the Senate floor. I think we have done it for so many years now that we are getting used to it and we ought to answer it.

Mr. President, I want to address another subject that I came here to address. I apologize to my colleagues if I offended them, but do not tell me that what I am saying is false. I know it is true. I for one am doggoned tired of this type of rhetoric.

I want to address the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and I would like this put in morning business.

I have the floor, do I not?

I just got the unanimous consent.

I will withdraw the morning business request, and I will put it in this Record.

Mr. President, who has the floor?

Of course, I will.

Mr. President, with my good friend and colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. We are joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the chairman of the Aging Committee, and Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking minority member of that committee.

As my colleagues may recall, Senator John Breaux and I introduced similar legislation in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. The bill was reported by the Finance Committee last year, but unfortunately it was not approved before we adjourned.

Although the number of older Americans is growing at a rapid pace, thousands of cases of elder abuse go unaddressed every day. The problem of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation has long been invisible and is probably one of the most serious issues facing seniors and their families.

Research in the field is scarce, but, by some estimates, up to five million cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation occur each year. Without more attention and more resources, far too many of these cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation will go unaddressed and far too many older Americans will suffer.

Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse. In fact, 25 years of congressional hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse have found this problem to be a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Yet, to date, no federal legislation has been enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner.

During that same time period, Congress passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government.

The cost of elder abuse is high. This is true in terms of needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, limited Federal resources and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of older citizens.

S. 2010 is designed to create a national focus on elder abuse to increase detection, prevention, prosecution and victim assistance. It ensures that states, communities, consumers and families will have access to the information and resources they need to confront this difficult issue.

By addressing law enforcement, social service and public health concerns, our bill uses the proven approach Congress has adopted to combat child abuse and violence against women.

I would like to take this opportunity to describe our legislation in more detail.

The Elder Justice Act establishes dual Offices of Elder Justice at the Departments of Justice, DOJ, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to combat elder abuse in residential and institutional settings. In addition, an Elder Justice Coordinating Council will be established to make recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on coordinating activities of Federal agencies related to elder abuse. This Council is specifically mandated to advise us on legislation, model laws and other appropriate action on addressing elder abuse.

The bill creates an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation to establish a short-term and long-term multi-disciplinary strategic plan for expanding the field of elder justice. The board would make recommendations to HHS, DOJ, and the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and submit to HHS, DOJ, and Congress information and recommendations on elder justice programs, activities and legislation.

The Elder Justice Act also directs the HHS Secretary to establish an Elder Resource Center to develop ways to collect, maintain and disseminate information relevant to consumers, families and providers in order to protect individuals from elder abuse and neglect. It is our hope that this Center will improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of information available on elder abuse. In addition, the bill establishes a National Elder Justice Library within the Center to serve as a centralized repository for materials on training, technical assistance and promising practices related to elder justice.

S. 2010 also improves, streamlines and promotes uniform collection and dissemination of national data related to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Today, data on elder abuse are very limited. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, is directed to develop a method for collecting national data regarding elder abuse and then create uniform national data reporting forms to help determine what a reportable event on elder abuse is.

The legislation includes several grants to combat elder abuse including grants to improve data collection activities on elder abuse prevention and prosecution of elder abuse cases. These grants would establish five Centers of Excellence nationwide to specialize in research, clinical practice and training related to elder abuse.

In addition, the HHS Secretary will award safe haven grants to six diverse communities to examine elder shelters to test various models for establishing safe havens. Elder victims' needs, which are rarely addressed, will be better met by supporting the creation of safe havens for seniors who are not safe where they live. Development of safe haven programs which focus on the special needs of at-risk elders and older victims are needed and necessary.

The legislation directs the HHS Secretary to award training grants to groups with responsibility for elder justice, eligible entities to provide care for those with dementia and certain entities to make recommendations on caring for underserved populations of seniors living in rural areas, minority populations, and Indian tribes. Training to combat elder abuse, neglect and exploitation will be supported both within individual disciplines and in multi-disciplines such as public health, social service and law enforcement settings.

In addition, our bill directs the Secretary to award fellowships to individuals so they may obtain training in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. An individual receiving such a fellowship shall provide training in forensic geriatrics to interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals. Grants also would be awarded to create programs to increase the number of health care professionals with geriatric training. Finally, the Elder Justice Act directs the HHS Secretary to award grants to conduct a national multimedia campaign to raise awareness on elder abuse.

Our legislation also requires a number of studies on elder abuse including one on the responsibilities of federal,

state and local governments in response to reports of elder abuse. This study would be to improve response time to elder abuse and reduce elder victimization.

In addition, the CDC Director is directed to conduct a study on the best method to address elder abuse from a public health perspective, including reducing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation committed by family members. Current statistics indicate that only 20 percent of elder abuse occurs in long-term care facilities and institutions--80 percent of elder abuse is committed in the home.

The bill also establishes new programs to assist victims and provides grants for education and training of law enforcement and prosecutors. It requires reporting of crimes in long-term care settings, creates a national criminal background check program for those employed by long- term care providers--something strongly advocated by Senator Kohl--and establishes a national nurse aide registry program based on recommendations by HHS.

Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass.

More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest seniors.

In closing, I must note that our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has 397 members.

This Congress, one of my top priorities is to get this bill signed into law, once and for all, so that elder justice will become a reality for those Americans who need it most. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. President, with my good friend and colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. We are joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the chairman of the Aging Committee, and Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking minority member of that committee.

As my colleagues may recall, Senator John Breaux and I introduced similar legislation in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. The bill was reported by the Finance Committee last year, but unfortunately it was not approved before we adjourned.

Although the number of older Americans is growing at a rapid pace, thousands of cases of elder abuse go unaddressed every day. The problem of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation has long been invisible and is probably one of the most serious issues facing seniors and their families.

Research in the field is scarce, but, by some estimates, up to five million cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation occur each year. Without more attention and more resources, far too many of these cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation will go unaddressed and far too many older Americans will suffer.

Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse. In fact, 25 years of congressional hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse have found this problem to be a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Yet, to date, no federal legislation has been enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner.

During that same time period, Congress passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government.

The cost of elder abuse is high. This is true in terms of needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, limited Federal resources and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of older citizens.

S. 2010 is designed to create a national focus on elder abuse to increase detection, prevention, prosecution and victim assistance. It ensures that states, communities, consumers and families will have access to the information and resources they need to confront this difficult issue.

By addressing law enforcement, social service and public health concerns, our bill uses the proven approach Congress has adopted to combat child abuse and violence against women.

I would like to take this opportunity to describe our legislation in more detail.

The Elder Justice Act establishes dual Offices of Elder Justice at the Departments of Justice, DOJ, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to combat elder abuse in residential and institutional settings. In addition, an Elder Justice Coordinating Council will be established to make recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on coordinating activities of Federal agencies related to elder abuse. This Council is specifically mandated to advise us on legislation, model laws and other appropriate action on addressing elder abuse.

The bill creates an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation to establish a short-term and long-term multi-disciplinary strategic plan for expanding the field of elder justice. The board would make recommendations to HHS, DOJ, and the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and submit to HHS, DOJ, and Congress information and recommendations on elder justice programs, activities and legislation.

The Elder Justice Act also directs the HHS Secretary to establish an Elder Resource Center to develop ways to collect, maintain and disseminate information relevant to consumers, families and providers in order to protect individuals from elder abuse and neglect. It is our hope that this Center will improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of information available on elder abuse. In addition, the bill establishes a National Elder Justice Library within the Center to serve as a centralized repository for materials on training, technical assistance and promising practices related to elder justice.

S. 2010 also improves, streamlines and promotes uniform collection and dissemination of national data related to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Today, data on elder abuse are very limited. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, is directed to develop a method for collecting national data regarding elder abuse and then create uniform national data reporting forms to help determine what a reportable event on elder abuse is.

The legislation includes several grants to combat elder abuse including grants to improve data collection activities on elder abuse prevention and prosecution of elder abuse cases. These grants would establish five Centers of Excellence nationwide to specialize in research, clinical practice and training related to elder abuse.

In addition, the HHS Secretary will award safe haven grants to six diverse communities to examine elder shelters to test various models for establishing safe havens. Elder victims' needs, which are rarely addressed, will be better met by supporting the creation of safe havens for seniors who are not safe where they live. Development of safe haven programs which focus on the special needs of at-risk elders and older victims are needed and necessary.

The legislation directs the HHS Secretary to award training grants to groups with responsibility for elder justice, eligible entities to provide care for those with dementia and certain entities to make recommendations on caring for underserved populations of seniors living in rural areas, minority populations, and Indian tribes. Training to combat elder abuse, neglect and exploitation will be supported both within individual disciplines and in multi-disciplines such as public health, social service and law enforcement settings.

In addition, our bill directs the Secretary to award fellowships to individuals so they may obtain training in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. An individual receiving such a fellowship shall provide training in forensic geriatrics to interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals. Grants also would be awarded to create programs to increase the number of health care professionals with geriatric training. Finally, the Elder Justice Act directs the HHS Secretary to award grants to conduct a national multimedia campaign to raise awareness on elder abuse.

Our legislation also requires a number of studies on elder abuse including one on the responsibilities of federal,

state and local governments in response to reports of elder abuse. This study would be to improve response time to elder abuse and reduce elder victimization.

In addition, the CDC Director is directed to conduct a study on the best method to address elder abuse from a public health perspective, including reducing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation committed by family members. Current statistics indicate that only 20 percent of elder abuse occurs in long-term care facilities and institutions--80 percent of elder abuse is committed in the home.

The bill also establishes new programs to assist victims and provides grants for education and training of law enforcement and prosecutors. It requires reporting of crimes in long-term care settings, creates a national criminal background check program for those employed by long- term care providers--something strongly advocated by Senator Kohl--and establishes a national nurse aide registry program based on recommendations by HHS.

Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass.

More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest seniors.

In closing, I must note that our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has 397 members.

This Congress, one of my top priorities is to get this bill signed into law, once and for all, so that elder justice will become a reality for those Americans who need it most. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the vote on amendment No. 2423, Senator Allard's amendment, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization bill. As my constituents know, with my wife Elaine, I was hosting the 21st Annual Utah Women's Conference. Mr. President, this is an important event, in which the women of the State of Utah can directly inform our State's leaders about the issues that affect them and their families.

Had I been present to vote on Senator Allard's amendment, I would have voted against the proposal.

amendment no. 1514

Mr. President, this past March, I stood here to express my reluctant support for the fiscal year 2006 concurrent budget resolution. My support was reluctant for one reason only. I believed the budget did not go far enough in slowing the growth of Federal spending.

My colleagues will remember that passing that budget resolution was not an easy thing. Both the original Senate version and the conference report passed by very narrow margins. Not one Democrat voted in favor of the budget resolution, so it was left up to those of us on this side of the aisle to pass that resolution.

The major reason why the budget was so difficult to pass was the inherent problem in getting a majority to agree on legislation that cuts the growth in spending for entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are those that grow automatically without any action from Congress. While they are many of the most important programs in the Government, they are also the most expensive. Some Senators wanted more cuts in spending growth than did others, and it was hard to get a consensus, especially when there was absolutely no support from the other side.

Nevertheless, we did manage to pass the budget resolution, which was the first step in the process we are trying to complete here tonight with the budget reconciliation bill. This bill ``reconciles'' the spending in the budget with the programmatic changes necessary to achieve the budget numbers. And while the projected spending growth in this budget over the next few years is still alarming, the cuts in that growth included in this bill are very much a good first step in the right direction.

What Senator Gregg, the chairman of the Budget Committee, emphasized in his opening remarks is very significant. This is the first time since 1997 that Congress has attempted to restrain the growth of entitlement spending programs. I think we can conclude that although the magnitude of the change is not as large as many of us would like to see, the directional change is very important.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this reconciliation bill would reduce federal outlays by more than $39 billion over the next 5 years and by almost $109 billion over the next 10 years. I realize that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are scoffing at the idea these numbers are not large enough in terms of reducing the deficit. Why, then, are we not seeing any spending reduction proposals from them? It is because it is much easier to throw rocks at our attempts to rein in spending growth than it is to make the hard choices themselves.

Rather than having an honest debate about how best to deal with out- of-control budgets, most of what we are hearing from our friends on the other side is the same old tiresome accusation that we are reducing spending for lower-income Americans so that we can cut taxes, once again, for those Americans who are wealthy and do not need a tax reduction. This, of course, is a gross distortion of the truth.

As Chairman Gregg has pointed out, the spending growth reductions in this bill are not directed at low-income individuals. We worked very hard to make sure that was the case, especially in the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over such important safety-net programs as Medicaid.

Indeed, the bill includes a significant amount of new spending. The amount of this new spending, some of which I recognize is necessary, is one of the problems I have with the bill. In addition, a great deal of the deficit reduction in this bill is achieved by raising fees or selling a portion of the broadcast spectrum. That being said, I will detail some of my specific objections about this in a little while.

As to criticisms about so-called tax cuts, there are not any in this bill. The tax reconciliation bill comes later, after this bill has passed. And the tax provisions that will be in that bill are generally in the nature of preventing tax increases on the middle class, not tax cuts for the wealthy. Moreover, most of those provisions enjoy broad support on both sides of the aisle.

Do I believe this reconciliation bill is perfect? Far from it.

Do I think we could have and should have done more in trimming the spending growth of entitlement programs? Absolutely.

As I mentioned before, the significance of this bill is not in the amount of deficit reduction it delivers, but in the change in direction that it represents. I hope we can pass it and then use it as a building block for more deficit reduction next year.

We have only a few short years to make much larger changes in our entitlement spending programs. All of us know that they are on an upward trajectory that is simply not sustainable. Passing this reconciliation bill now begins to turn the tide. It sets the stage for more responsible spending. With a smart mix of pro-growth policies that will help ensure continued economic growth and future spending restraint, we can begin to lower the deficit and put our budget in a condition to withstand the storms ahead.

Now, I would like to take the time to get into some of the details of the changes included in the bill by the three committees on which I serve.

As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked hard with Chairman Grassley to ensure that our Committee met the goal of finding $10 billion in savings. Unfortunately, the Finance package also spends a significant amount of money when I believe that our national focus needs to be on saving money. Some of it is necessary. Some not.

And, I am very troubled by how we are paying for this spending. Close to $5 billion comes from eliminating the MedicareAdvantage Regional Plan Stabilization Fund, something I strongly oppose. The stabilization fund is a critical component to facilitating regional Preferred Provider Organizations, PPOs, in the Medicare Advantage program, thus providing these plans to beneficiaries throughout the country, particularly in rural areas.

The MMA has made Medicare Advantage plans more widely available with greater beneficiary savings than ever before, including in rural areas and many other areas that previously were not served by Medicare Advantage plans.

Since the MMA was enacted in 2003, there has been a large increase in the availability of Medicare Advantage health plans that provide additional benefits and corresponding reductions in total health care costs. For example, in rural areas where there has historically been minimal managed care available, there are now three regional PPOs offering an integrated package of medical and prescription drug benefits with extra coverage at lower prices, one of these regional PPOs even offers a zero drug deductible.

The stabilization fund will help make it possible to provide secure access to these new, lower-cost coverage options in underserved areas. While more Medicare beneficiaries than ever will have regional Medicare Advantage options in 2006, further progress is needed for people with Medicare in 13 States, specifically: my home state of Utah; Alaska; Colorado; Connecticut; Idaho; Maine; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New Mexico; Oregon; Rhode Island; Vermont; and Washington.

When developing the MMA, the Congress recognized that some states might not be served by regional Medicare Advantage plans in the initial years of the program and strategically created the benefit stabilization fund, which sunsets in 2013, to encourage plans to operate in all areas of the Nation. Utah is one of those States and that is why I strongly supported the creation of the stabilization fund during the MMA negotiations.

The stabilization fund helps to make sure that, in future years, plans will choose to serve the people with Medicare who do not have Medicare Advantage options in 2006. And, conversely, repealing the fund, or cutting its revenues, means reduced benefits and higher costs for these seniors in future years.

Many Medicare Advantage plans are already serving Medicare beneficiaries with some very generous benefit offerings for 2006, with the expectation that there would be stability in the program. For the health plans that are interested in potentially providing this regional PPO coverage, it is essential for them to know that they will get some help with starting up if they need it in areas that had been underserved before, and that the Medicare program will keep their payments predictable.

If Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, start cutting promised funding and/or changing program rules even before the first benefit is administered, we send a very negative signal to plans, and that may mean worse coverage options and higher costs for Medicare beneficiaries in the future.

Cuts to or reductions in the stabilization fund, and therefore, payments to regional plans amount to adding costs for beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums, reduced benefits, or both. Without this fund, it will be difficult to convince plans to offer coverage to beneficiaries who currently do not have access to regional PPOs.

Maintaining the current stabilization fund will encourage more regional PPOs to enter the Medicare Advantage program and make sure that significantly more people, including my fellow Utahns, have access to Medicare Advantage plans next year.

I do not understand why we would be eliminating this fund, especially before the Medicare drug plan program is even operational. It just does not make good policy sense and that is why I oppose the elimination.

This is especially vexing given that there are a number of other sources for revenue. I will be fighting for more extensive restrictions on asset transfers and the inclusion of provisions which would prohibit intergovernmental transfers. Including these provisions would have severely curtailed activities where individuals and some State governments have intentionally defrauded the Medicaid program.

I have heard the arguments about why we should not have included them in the proposal, but I do not buy those arguments. More aggressive legislating in these areas would preclude some of the other reductions necessitated in this bill, such as those for the stabilization fund.

The provisions on payment for prescription drugs under the Medicaid program are another deep concern of mine. These have only been made worse by adoption of amendments in the Chamber. Let me say that while I agree that changes are warranted, I am very worried about the approach included in the bill. I am not sure that the new definitions created for Average Manufacturer's Price, AMP, Weighted Average Manufacturer's Price, WAMP, and the new formula which were created for the Federal Upper Payment Limit, FUPL, will address the criticisms of the current policy. In fact, these new definitions could make the situation worse. I am also troubled that the genesis of these changes was not a desire for good policy, but rather an interest in seeking funding from a ``deep pocket.'' That trend was only exacerbated during Senate consideration of the Finance title, as we added two rebate-related amendments with spending implications that totaled several billions of dollars more.

It is clear to me that, as consideration of the conference report begins, we must continue discussions with the various stakeholders who have a vested interest in making this policy work, in particular, the pharmacists and the pharmaceutical companies.

The budget resolution contained a reconciliation instruction directing the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP Committee, on which I serve, to reduce spending by $13.7 billion in 5 years. We on the HELP Committee worked very hard to achieve this goal, which required difficult spending vs. savings decisions.

Within the past months, as we wrote reauthorizing language for the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, Head Start, the Perkins Act, career and technical education, and the Higher Education Act, HEA, we kept in mind the need to meet the reduction in spending goals. Each of these reauthorization bills was unanimously approved in committee.

While I recognize the tough choices we needed to make, I am pleased overall with the reconciliation bill as it relates to education provisions, accounting for a total savings of $9.8 billion. Spending increases in the bill include increases in Pell grants, along with ProGAP, a new grant assistance to Pell eligible students.

Another new program, SMART grants, would provide assistance to students studying math, science, technology, engineering, or a foreign language. Subsidized borrowing levels were increased, along with a permanent extension of the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act. Additional loan deferments were made for members of the Armed Services or the reserves. These programs would give Utah students, particularly those of low or moderate income, greater access to college educations and will boast our local and national economy as we seek to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce.

Significant savings were found in student loans, mostly from lending institutions, including a requirement for guaranty agencies to deposit one percent of their collections in the Federal Reserve fund, a reduction in lender insurance and repeal of the provision that guarantees 100 percent of loans for certain lenders. An additional fee is charged for lenders originating consolidation loans, and permanent restrictions are made on transfer or refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds that receive a 9.5 percent rate of return.

I have concerns about last-minute changes to include major spending increases, even though they appear to have been reconciled by savings. However, my colleagues should know that I am paying particular attention to fixing the interest rate for undergraduate and graduate non-consolidation borrowing at 6.8 percent, preferring a choice of a variable rate similar to the House provision. I am also concerned about the way certain bills are structured that are currently before the Senate that deal with the inclusion of Katrina public and private school payments.

The HELP Committee also included provisions increasing significantly the amounts of premiums employers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans must pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC. These increases were larger than they needed to be, and represent placeholders until we can pass the pension reform bill that was produced by the Finance and HELP Committees. I hope we will soon be able to consider and pass that legislation, partly for the reason of reducing these premium increases to more reasonable amounts.

The Judiciary Committee greatly exceeded its reconciliation targets, and I applaud that accomplishment even though I do not support the means by which it was achieved. Federal spending is out of control and, as my colleagues know, this has been a concern of mine for a long time. I am gratified to see that so many others now share my concerns and, more importantly, that we are finally doing something about irresponsible spending despite the efforts of a few members on the other side of the aisle to scuttle this reconciliation bill.

I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee did not report a proposed tax on the explosives industry. It was just plain wrong, and it would have hurt a lot of people in Utah. Naturally, I fought tooth and nail to make sure it was off the table and I, along with others, succeeded in stopping it.

This brings us to the current Judiciary title. I do not think we should have used a reconciliation measure to alter immigration policy, particularly in light of the current debate on comprehensive immigration reform. For this, and other reasons, I offered an amendment that would have imposed a 5 percent increase in all immigration related fees instead of simply allowing more people into the country as a way of reducing our Nation's deficit. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated in committee.

That being said, I recognize that it is not easy to come up with savings. It means tough choices. But it is our job to make the tough calls and the Judiciary Committee did just that.

I strongly support moving this package through the Senate. However, I want my colleagues to understand my concerns and that I intend to continue working with them on improving the package. I know this was an extremely difficult task, and I appreciate all the hard work of many of my colleagues, and particularly the chairmen of the committees on which I serve.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer S. Res. 298, designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as Feed America Thursday. I appreciate my friend, Senator Robert Bennett, joining with me in this resolution.

On Thanksgiving Day, we remember with deep gratitude the many bounties of life, including an appreciation for families and friends and the great country in which we live. Part of what makes this country great is the spirit of selfless giving and generosity of its citizens. The great outpouring of support and assistance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina is a most recent example.

In this season of Thanksgiving, it is important to also remember that over 33 million Americans, including 13 million children, continue to live in households that do not have an adequate supply of food. These fellow citizens in need of food must not be forgotten.

On behalf of the Utah congressional delegation, Congressman Chris Cannon has submitted a companion resolution in the House of Representatives. We urge our distinguished colleagues to join us in designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as Feed America Thursday, to encourage our fellow citizens to sacrifice two meals on that day and donate the money they would have spent on food to a religious or charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of feeding the hungry.

Mr. President, 98 percent of all drugs are covered by the Medicare Modernization Act. And HIV/AIDS drugs are covered. So I am having trouble understanding the need for this amendment. It makes no sense for dual eligibles to have coverage for prescription drugs in both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

I have listened to the arguments the proponents of the amendment have used, primarily that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will be very confusing to those beneficiaries who are used to having their coverage through the Medicaid Program. I personally believe providing coverage through both programs will make it much more confusing for beneficiaries. Instead of helping these vulnerable seniors, I believe the Murray amendment would confuse them and not provide the help they need with their drug coverage.

CMS is there. They will help. They know what to do. They are there for these people. We have provided they would be there.

In addition, I don't understand why these beneficiaries would need a Federal match for Medicaid coverage because they cannot navigate the exceptions process or the transition process. If an individual has problems with his or her drug coverage, there will be help available to them through CMS, congressional offices, State government

agencies, and community organizations such as the AARP that is so strongly behind this bill. There is no need for duplicative drug coverage.

I might add, if I am not mistaken, I think the distinguished Senator from Washington supported the Rockefeller amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill that we fought so strongly over, that is now law. This particular amendment would have had the duals' drugs covered by Medicare, not Medicaid--this was included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. I don't know what brought about the change of mind.

CMS recognizes the transition from Medicaid drug coverage to Medicare is enormous and has been diligently working to ensure the process for beneficiaries is as quick and efficient as possible. Protections are in place to ensure that no full-benefit dual-eligible beneficiary will go without coverage when the new Medicare prescription drug benefit starts on January 1, 2006. All Part D plans that CMS approves must meet strict Medicare regulations and standards guaranteeing that Medicare beneficiaries receive drug coverage that best fits their needs.

Part D plans are required to have a coverage determination process which includes an exceptions process and appeals processes that provide enrollees with opportunities to challenge the exclusion of a particular drug from a plan's formulary. Each plan must have a procedure for making timely coverage determinations on standard and expedited requests made by enrollees. Plans must also make their determinations as expeditiously as an enrollee's health care condition requires, but no later than 24 hours for expedited decisions involving enrollees who will suffer from serious health conditions, and 72 hours for standard decisions.

These formulary and appeal procedures are in place to ensure that there are no instances where a beneficiary is in need of a drug and cannot get it.

To address the needs of individuals who are stabilized on certain drug regimens, Part D plans are required to establish an appropriate transition process for new enrollees who are transitioning to Part D from other prescription drug coverage and whose current drug therapies may not be included in their Part D plan's formulary. Additionally, this amendment presents an unfair situation for States who have already agreed to pay ``clawback'' payments to the Federal Government. By mandating that State Medicaid Programs also pay for drugs, we would essentially increase the financial burden on the States.

I hope our colleagues will not vote for this amendment. In all honesty, when we talk about the issue of choosing between food and drugs, the Medicare Modernization Act provides a substantial subsidy for low-income seniors for their drug coverage. These seniors will not have to choose between food and drugs, basically because their drugs will be covered. They will not have to choose, as has been stated here, between having enough food to eat and drugs. That is one of the things we tried to take care of when we did the Medicare Modernization Act. Saying that you have to choose between food and drugs is not only wrong, it unfairly scares our senior citizens, and it confuses them. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, 98 percent of all drugs are covered, and that includes HIV/AIDS drugs.

In fact, beneficiaries can use the plan finder tool to find plans that cover specific drugs.

I want to clarify one thing. Seniors who are dual eligibles will receive their Medicare drug coverage on January 1, 2006. It is not true they will not be covered. They will be covered, and they will receive their drug coverage. That is what this bill is supposed to do, and that is what it will do.

I hope our colleagues will vote this amendment down because I think it not only confusing to seniors, but frankly, the way the benefit is devised by CMS, beneficiaries should be able to get all the drug coverage they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my cosponsors Senators Bennett, Reid, and Ensign to introduce a very simple piece of legislation. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, at fair market value, 112 acres of property in the Dixie National Forest to Mr. Kirk Harrison. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. Harrison's family settled in southern Utah's Pinto Valley in 1860. The family was among the first to locate to the area. The Harrison family established their property boundaries by constructing fences that are still standing today. The family cleared, irrigated, and settled the property in question and continued to plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, maintain fences, and otherwise work the land for more than 150 years. During that time, the family exercised unrestricted use, relying on those boundaries established in 1860.

In 1885, the Harrison family applied for and was granted a patent to those lands. Subsequent surveys in 1881 and 1905 found no discrepancies between the boundaries asserted by the Harrison family and the actual boundaries of the adjacent Forest Service lands.

It was not until 1984, when the Forest Service employed an independent firm to perform a survey, did any inconsistency arise. The 1984 survey found that the land occupied by the Harrison family was in violation of the boundary established in the 1885 patent.

The 1984 survey was flawed for two principal reasons: First, a rock survey monument used in the 1881 survey is 37 feet away from a different rock monument used in the 1905 survey, creating significant confusion. Neither of these monuments could be located or used during the 1984 survey. Next, the 1984 surveyors did not accept an historic ``rock mound'' monument, despite the fact that other surveyors had.

The Harrison family has used this land for nearly 150 years. Mr. Harrison wants nothing more than to be able to continue to use the land that his family settled and has used for so long. While Mr. Harrison has worked to resolve this issue with the Forest Service for nearly 15 years, the parties have not been able to agree upon a viable solution. This legislation offers a fair, commonsense answer to the problem.

The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell Mr. Harrison 112 acres at fair market value. This represents slightly more land than the Harrison family's original property to satisfy the Forest Service's requirement that boundaries be uniform. The Forest Service stipulates that its national forest boundaries must be straight and manageable, and the purchase of additional acreage will fulfill that requirement. The bill also would ensure that the Secretary uses the proceeds from the sale of the land to purchase other acreage for the Dixie National Forest. In my view, this legislation is the easiest and most effective way to resolve this longstanding dispute.

I am aware that some concerns have been raised about this bill in the past. For example, some have expressed concerns that this legislation would restrict sportsmen's access to the Dixie National Forest, prevent landowners from obtaining water, and allow for the subdivision of the land. However, since those concerns were raised, the plan has been cleared by the Washington County Commission, the State hunter interests, and the majority of landowners in the Pinto Valley. Only after receiving assurances that these groups did not oppose this legislation did I decided to move forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my cosponsors Senators Bennett, Reid, and Ensign to introduce a very simple piece of legislation. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, at fair market value, 112 acres of property in the Dixie National Forest to Mr. Kirk Harrison. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. Harrison's family settled in southern Utah's Pinto Valley in 1860. The family was among the first to locate to the area. The Harrison family established their property boundaries by constructing fences that are still standing today. The family cleared, irrigated, and settled the property in question and continued to plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, maintain fences, and otherwise work the land for more than 150 years. During that time, the family exercised unrestricted use, relying on those boundaries established in 1860.

In 1885, the Harrison family applied for and was granted a patent to those lands. Subsequent surveys in 1881 and 1905 found no discrepancies between the boundaries asserted by the Harrison family and the actual boundaries of the adjacent Forest Service lands.

It was not until 1984, when the Forest Service employed an independent firm to perform a survey, did any inconsistency arise. The 1984 survey found that the land occupied by the Harrison family was in violation of the boundary established in the 1885 patent.

The 1984 survey was flawed for two principal reasons: First, a rock survey monument used in the 1881 survey is 37 feet away from a different rock monument used in the 1905 survey, creating significant confusion. Neither of these monuments could be located or used during the 1984 survey. Next, the 1984 surveyors did not accept an historic ``rock mound'' monument, despite the fact that other surveyors had.

The Harrison family has used this land for nearly 150 years. Mr. Harrison wants nothing more than to be able to continue to use the land that his family settled and has used for so long. While Mr. Harrison has worked to resolve this issue with the Forest Service for nearly 15 years, the parties have not been able to agree upon a viable solution. This legislation offers a fair, commonsense answer to the problem.

The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell Mr. Harrison 112 acres at fair market value. This represents slightly more land than the Harrison family's original property to satisfy the Forest Service's requirement that boundaries be uniform. The Forest Service stipulates that its national forest boundaries must be straight and manageable, and the purchase of additional acreage will fulfill that requirement. The bill also would ensure that the Secretary uses the proceeds from the sale of the land to purchase other acreage for the Dixie National Forest. In my view, this legislation is the easiest and most effective way to resolve this longstanding dispute.

I am aware that some concerns have been raised about this bill in the past. For example, some have expressed concerns that this legislation would restrict sportsmen's access to the Dixie National Forest, prevent landowners from obtaining water, and allow for the subdivision of the land. However, since those concerns were raised, the plan has been cleared by the Washington County Commission, the State hunter interests, and the majority of landowners in the Pinto Valley. Only after receiving assurances that these groups did not oppose this legislation did I decided to move forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005.

This month marks the 21st year of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a campaign that provides a special opportunity to offer education about the important association between early detection and survival. National Breast Cancer Awareness month also salutes the more than 2,000,000 breast cancer survivors in the United States and the efforts of victims, volunteers, and professionals who combat breast cancer each day.

According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 40 and 55; and one out of every eight women who live to the age of 85 will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. But the disease is not limited by gender. In 2005, approximately 1,700 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home State of Utah, as indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer has the highest incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This disease has an impact on nearly every American's life.

Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991; however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. There is general belief within the scientific community that the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role has been less-examined.

Research has investigated the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases, there has been no conclusive evidence. In-depth study of these potential risks could provide invaluable information in understanding the causes of breast cancer, and could lead to new prevention strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer.

Along with Senators Chafee, Reid, Clinton, and Talent, I have introduced S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005, to address this palpable need for research. Specifically, the bill would authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on environmental factors that may be related to breast cancer. This legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, DOD BCRP, which operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that involves consumers.

Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally focused strategy to address this oversight, a strategy like the one outlined in

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to all the men and women in Washington County, UT whose hard work and diligence have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm such a success. These dedicated volunteers are helping to protect and display an asset of great value not only to Utah but to the Nation.

The history of this discovery is fascinating. A few years ago, retired optometrist Dr. Sheldon Johnson was preparing his farm site for development and as he turned over the earth, he discovered tracks of early residents of Washington County--very early residents, in fact. Dinosaur tracks dating back to the Jurassic period of history were uncovered. They are being preserved and are bringing economic and historic benefit to St. George, Washington County, UT, and the Nation. To date, visitors from 68 nations and all 50 States have visited the site.

I want to recognize and thank Dr. Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who discovered the tracks and then donated the land to preserve this heritage. The Johnsons have made it all possible. Linda Sappington, Washington County volunteer coordinator, aided by volunteer supervisors Kae Crabtree and Carole Chadwick began in February 2000 to bring together individuals who cared about the tracks and who were willing to give of themselves to help preserve the find.

I also want to recognize and thank Mayor Dan McArthur, the city of St. George, Washington County, and the Utah State legislature for their efforts to enhance, preserve, and share this heritage area with the community now and for generations to come.

In addition to the Johnsons, I recognize, Suzanne Allen; Dr. Andrew Barnum; Herb Basso; Dr. David Borris; Alan Crooks; Lyle Drake; Kenneth Hinton; Sharon Isom; unfortunately, now deceased; LaRee Jones; Dr. James Kirkland; Dr. Martin Lockley; Dan Matheson; Layton Ott, also deceased, Kathy Smith; Darcy Stewart; Marshall Topham; Gary Watts; John Willie. They are all members of the Dinosaur

AH'torium, a 501 (c) 3 foundation responsible for funding the project. Advisory members include James Hansen, Dr. Jerry Harris, Gary Sanders, with Cliff Green and Robert Milder, resident artist.

Finally, today, I specifically want to recognize and thank the many volunteers who have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm possible. Many of these wonderful individuals have been contributing their time and energy for more than 5 years. A tremendous thank you to the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm volunteers. I commend each of them.

2000 volunteers include: Chad Anderson; T.R. Thompson; Andrew Milner; Donnette Hatch; June Barton; Kae Crabtree; Nina Schwarze; Karen Rammell; Lee Rammell; Doug Bergen; Richard Gardner; Ryan Babcock; Dick Groves; Robert Pritchitt; Klein Adams; Rafael Acosta; Ryan Oburn; Hal Arrowood; Jason Skeen; Clyde Terry; Vilma Terry; Bev Middleton; Chris Walker; Steve Smith; Helen Salvatore; Cindy Greco; Scott Broen; Jereen Hyde; Stevan Duke; Barbara Duke; Stacie Wilson; Constance Sherwood; Jacob Hendriks; and Brett Bronson.

Mr. President, 2001 volunteers: Jim Burns; Lillian Zielke; Barbara Hatch; Peggy Wardle; Carol Duley; Gary Watts; Josephine Kellijan; Ember Rodgers; Kirk Rehfield; Bill Reynolds; Theresa Walker; Cassandra Lee; Lynnie Rolfe; Joel Campbell; Ryan Losee; Chris Gibson; Kyle Fraley; John Shaw; Steve Anderson; Drew Gubler; Shelton Heath; Paula Ryan; Bernie Yeager; Jill Conner; Candace Crane; Nichole Burton; Austin Carter; Dusty Ott; Kirk Richfield; Nate Leifson; Ron Kittelsrud; Maren Christensen; Ben Joe Markland; Emily Weidauer; Holly Hult; Carol Killian; Scott Woodworth; Brian Barrett; Warren Hoskings; Kevin Wiederhold; Autumn Cluff.

Mr. President, 2002 volunteers: Rudy Johnson; Clay Hopkins; Elizabeth Nipperus; Jeff Lingwall; Debbie Woodard; Joyce Proctor; Britton Puki; Joe Borden; Melvin Done; Melanie Hackmann; Kathryn VanRoosendaal; Doug Griffiths; Charlotte Rice; Angie Hendrickson; Chad Tipton; Laurie Barnholt; Aaron Heaton; Kathy Hancock; Carson Blickenstaff; Glen Steenbuck; Bev Rhodes; Brigham Mellor; Kami Cox; Kathy Cox; Russ Childs; Delbert Vern Chadwick; Beverly Kirk; Matthew Wilkinson; Monte Johnson; Darrell Wade; Terri Wade; Sheena Gawer; Barbara Smith; Ken Parkes; Darienne McNamara; Kat Duttadway; Kylea Christensen; Jacob Cox; Jason Rabbitt; Don Triptow; Bill Yensen; Arlene Yensen; Les Townsend; Barbara Townsend; Al Abrams; John Donnell; JoAnn Abrams; Arlea Howell; David Kitselmer; Steve Chilow; Cathy Freeman; Duane Freeman; Steven Bart.

Mr. President, 2003 volunteers: Janece Tolber; George D'Apuzzo; Carl Berg, Laurie Berg; Myron Hatch; David Slauf; Taylor Birthisel; Linda Baldazzi; Bob Baldazzi; Sally Stephenson; Steve Stephenson; Roger Head; Bonnie Head; Pat Elliott; Jacqueline Dubois; Jerry Schwantz; Shirley Surfas; Pat Vanderwark; Keith Vanderwark; Joan Triptow; Jay Guymon; Kilby Andersen; Kelly Bringhurst; Marc Raines; Lisa Raines; Molly Swift; Chester Pierce; Dennis Broad; George Mulle; Rena Jensen; Roger Taylor; Maynie Begeman; Tobert Begeman; Bal Humble; Paul Wiener; Frances Wiener; Anne Bredon; Gail Taylor; Mike Llewellyn; Curtis Halliday; Dale Peck; Arlea Howell; Shannon Ducrest; Anne Basham; Brooke Ranter; Melissa Thomson; Michelle Bower; Jana Hightower; Brian Schlegel; Danny Diamond; Dallas Jones; Andrew Neff; Lindsay Connelley- Brown.

Mr. President, 2004 volunteers: Carla Ritter; Sheila Hughes; Don Hughes; Tracey O'Kelly; Jerry Harris; Jessica Williams.

Mr. President, 2005 volunteers: Paula Welker; Connie Welker; Kameron Evans; Dick Vos; Rogerta Champlin; Wally Champlin; Richard Berger; Justin Moosman; Christine Blum; Lamont Reynolds; Judy D'Apuzzo; Louise Snyder; Arleen Stillman; Lorene Reynolds; Freddie Arrighi.

To these dedicated volunteers and to all of those who will continue to volunteer, I say thank you.

Mr. President: I rise today to introduce S. 1883, the Empowering More Property Owners with Enhanced Rights Act of 2005, or the EMPOWER Act, a bill that amends the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (the Uniform Act). The EMPOWER Act will assist property owners and Federal agencies in resolving disputes relating to private property outside of the courts. I am joined by my colleague Senator Baucus as lead cosponsor of this bill.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London, citizens around the country are calling members of Congress asking if their homes, small businesses, and family farms are safe from the power of the government. While this legislation doesn't address Kelo directly, the EMPOWER Act will enhance the rights of private property owners, when their property becomes a target of the federal government.

The Uniform Act applies to all Federal agencies, and was passed by Congress to ``provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs. . . .'' The Act was amended in 1987 to designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the Lead Agency, requiring it to coordinate with other Federal agencies to issue government-wide standards for eminent domain actions.

The EMPOWER Act would super-size the Uniform Act by assigning the DOT stronger responsibilities in protecting the rights of property owners. It accomplishes this goal in two significant ways. First, it establishes a Property Owners' Bill of Rights, adding new powers to property owners. Second, it establishes a Private Property Ombudsperson to act as a neutral party to assist property owners, small businesses, and family farms when they are subject to Federal or federally assisted actions that affect their property.

The property owners' ``Bill of Rights'' includes those rights already enumerated in the Uniform Act, such as the right to just compensation, replacement housing, and relocation assistance. However, the bill would add several new rights that would significantly enhance the power of the Uniform Act. These are: the right to full

disclosure of the government's appraised value of the property in question; the right to an independent second appraisal; the right to participate in mediation or, if necessary, arbitration as an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation; the right to be informed about their rights and access to assistance; and the right to assistance from a Property Rights Ombudsperson.

The Property Rights Ombudsperson established by the EMPOWER Act would assist property owners in negotiating the Federal bureaucracy and to act as a third-party neutral in resolving disputes. The Ombudsperson would inform the public of their rights and actively work to help property owners take full advantage of those rights. The Ombudsperson would call for mediated disputes; force arbitration if necessary; work with Federal agencies to advise them about their actions which affect private property; ensure that agencies inform affected property owners of their rights; and provide information to private citizens, citizen groups, and other interested parties regarding rights and responsibilities relating to property rights.

The EMPOWER Act is modeled after a highly successful program in Utah, which has led the Nation in the area of property rights. After 8 years in effect in Utah, this program has taken a great deal of the acrimony and pain out of the process of eminent domain. It has saved the state millions of dollars in litigation fees and reduced the condemnation rate by half. Most important, it has considerably improved government to citizen relations. The vast majority of those using this program in Utah are homeowners and the program has provided them with considerable relief.

The EMPOWER Act adapts the Utah model to the Federal Government. The Act does not change the rules of Federal acquisition of private property, but it does provide significant assistance to private property owners, small businesses, and family farmers when they are faced with a daunting Federal bureaucracy and the possibility of private property loss.

The EMPOWER Act goes a long way toward protecting our citizens from overbearing federal action with regard to private property rights. It takes nothing away from government but does empower citizens, and requires agencies to ensure that property owners are treated fairly. I urge my colleagues to support this Act.

Mr. President: I rise today to introduce S. 1883, the Empowering More Property Owners with Enhanced Rights Act of 2005, or the EMPOWER Act, a bill that amends the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (the Uniform Act). The EMPOWER Act will assist property owners and Federal agencies in resolving disputes relating to private property outside of the courts. I am joined by my colleague Senator Baucus as lead cosponsor of this bill.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London, citizens around the country are calling members of Congress asking if their homes, small businesses, and family farms are safe from the power of the government. While this legislation doesn't address Kelo directly, the EMPOWER Act will enhance the rights of private property owners, when their property becomes a target of the federal government.

The Uniform Act applies to all Federal agencies, and was passed by Congress to ``provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs. . . .'' The Act was amended in 1987 to designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the Lead Agency, requiring it to coordinate with other Federal agencies to issue government-wide standards for eminent domain actions.

The EMPOWER Act would super-size the Uniform Act by assigning the DOT stronger responsibilities in protecting the rights of property owners. It accomplishes this goal in two significant ways. First, it establishes a Property Owners' Bill of Rights, adding new powers to property owners. Second, it establishes a Private Property Ombudsperson to act as a neutral party to assist property owners, small businesses, and family farms when they are subject to Federal or federally assisted actions that affect their property.

The property owners' ``Bill of Rights'' includes those rights already enumerated in the Uniform Act, such as the right to just compensation, replacement housing, and relocation assistance. However, the bill would add several new rights that would significantly enhance the power of the Uniform Act. These are: the right to full

disclosure of the government's appraised value of the property in question; the right to an independent second appraisal; the right to participate in mediation or, if necessary, arbitration as an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation; the right to be informed about their rights and access to assistance; and the right to assistance from a Property Rights Ombudsperson.

The Property Rights Ombudsperson established by the EMPOWER Act would assist property owners in negotiating the Federal bureaucracy and to act as a third-party neutral in resolving disputes. The Ombudsperson would inform the public of their rights and actively work to help property owners take full advantage of those rights. The Ombudsperson would call for mediated disputes; force arbitration if necessary; work with Federal agencies to advise them about their actions which affect private property; ensure that agencies inform affected property owners of their rights; and provide information to private citizens, citizen groups, and other interested parties regarding rights and responsibilities relating to property rights.

The EMPOWER Act is modeled after a highly successful program in Utah, which has led the Nation in the area of property rights. After 8 years in effect in Utah, this program has taken a great deal of the acrimony and pain out of the process of eminent domain. It has saved the state millions of dollars in litigation fees and reduced the condemnation rate by half. Most important, it has considerably improved government to citizen relations. The vast majority of those using this program in Utah are homeowners and the program has provided them with considerable relief.

The EMPOWER Act adapts the Utah model to the Federal Government. The Act does not change the rules of Federal acquisition of private property, but it does provide significant assistance to private property owners, small businesses, and family farmers when they are faced with a daunting Federal bureaucracy and the possibility of private property loss.

The EMPOWER Act goes a long way toward protecting our citizens from overbearing federal action with regard to private property rights. It takes nothing away from government but does empower citizens, and requires agencies to ensure that property owners are treated fairly. I urge my colleagues to support this Act.