Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a private relief bill for Miss Heilit Martinez. As my colleagues know, private relief is available in rare instances. I believe that the circumstances surrounding Miss Martinez's case are extraordinary and merit the introduction of private legislation. Therefore, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today.

Miss Martinez was brought into the U.S. with her parents when she was about two years of age and has lived in Utah since that time. It is important to note that Miss Martinez did not make the decision to enter this country as a young child nor did she decide to overstay a visa, and she was led to believe that she had legal status. Miss Martinez was raised and educated in the United States and is currently a straight A student at Utah State University.

Last year, Miss Martinez and a group of her college friends traveled into Mexico for a short day of sightseeing. When questioned at the port of entry, Miss Martinez declared that she had not been born in the United States but had legal immigration status. However, when she could not produce legal documentation, it was discovered that Miss Martinez was undocumented. She was detained for some days prior to her release.

For all intents and purposes, Miss Martinez does not have a country to which to return. The United States is her home. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation to help Miss Martinez on the path of becoming a lawful, permanent resident.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit an important resolution designating the 30th day of April 2005 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.''

Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos on the 30th of April, in recognition and celebration of their country's future--their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes.

The designation of a day to honor the children of the Nation will help affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide us with an opportunity to reflect on their future, articulate their dreams and aspirations, and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and states across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Joining me as original co-sponsors to this Resolution are John Cornyn, Charles E. Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez, and Lisa Murkowski.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in promptly passing this Resolution designating April 30, 2005 Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the tax treatment of a narrow range of health plans sponsored by associations. I am joined in this effort by my good friends and colleagues, the Chairman and the Ranking Democratic Member of the Finance Committee respectively, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus.

For many years, trade associations of small businesses have sponsored plans for their member companies to provide health care coverage to their employees. These plans have helped thousands of small businesses across the country control rising health care costs and keep administrative costs to a minimum.

Unfortunately, final regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service in 2003 concerning ``10-or-more'' employer health benefit plans that use the experience-rating method threaten to shut down the health plans of many associations. Essentially, these regulations state that health plans that utilize experience rating are not allowed to accumulate reserves, forcing them into the untenable position of either

operating on a break-even basis or losing money.

These regulations were not aimed directly at association health plans, but at certain other employer-provided benefits, such as life and disability insurance, where the IRS has found a pattern of abuse among some companies. However, the proposed implementation of the regulations make it impossible for an association to continue operating a health plan for the group's small business members, even where no abuse of the rules has occurred.

For example, in my home State of Utah, at least one association of small businesses has already been negatively affected by these regulations. This association has dozens of small business members that are dependent upon the health plan the association has had in place for decades. Compliance with the regulations will very likely lead to increased costs for health coverage for the 1,300 employees and their 2,200 dependents of these small businesses. If the trust is not able to properly reserve funds for the future, some of these businesses could be forced to drop out as premiums rise higher and higher and the plan is unable to offset those increases with the reserves.

The legislation we are introducing today would correct this problem by providing that medical benefit plans of bona fide associations may have a reserve of up to 35 percent. This amount is designed to give association health plans the flexibility they need without raising the potential for abuse.

In the face of rising health care costs, employers that offer health coverage to their employees are struggling to maintain these benefits, and those who do not offer coverage find the cost of providing this important advantage increasingly out of reach. With the recent 59 percent spike in health care costs over the past five years, employers have had to resort to various cost-cutting moves in order to keep providing health care benefits. The IRS regulations affecting 10-or- more employer health benefit plans could strike a devastating blow to many small businesses, forcing them to stop providing health care benefits altogether, or at least making the coverage more expensive and/or less available to employees.

This legislation was developed with bipartisan support. It is noncontroversial. It corrects a problem created by a well-meaning regulation that inadvertently overreached its target. I urge all of my colleagues to help us correct this error and not allow medical benefit health plans offered by small business associations to be forced to shut down, leaving thousands of employees facing higher costs for medical coverage, or worse, no coverage at all.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the tax treatment of a narrow range of health plans sponsored by associations. I am joined in this effort by my good friends and colleagues, the Chairman and the Ranking Democratic Member of the Finance Committee respectively, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus.

For many years, trade associations of small businesses have sponsored plans for their member companies to provide health care coverage to their employees. These plans have helped thousands of small businesses across the country control rising health care costs and keep administrative costs to a minimum.

Unfortunately, final regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service in 2003 concerning ``10-or-more'' employer health benefit plans that use the experience-rating method threaten to shut down the health plans of many associations. Essentially, these regulations state that health plans that utilize experience rating are not allowed to accumulate reserves, forcing them into the untenable position of either

operating on a break-even basis or losing money.

These regulations were not aimed directly at association health plans, but at certain other employer-provided benefits, such as life and disability insurance, where the IRS has found a pattern of abuse among some companies. However, the proposed implementation of the regulations make it impossible for an association to continue operating a health plan for the group's small business members, even where no abuse of the rules has occurred.

For example, in my home State of Utah, at least one association of small businesses has already been negatively affected by these regulations. This association has dozens of small business members that are dependent upon the health plan the association has had in place for decades. Compliance with the regulations will very likely lead to increased costs for health coverage for the 1,300 employees and their 2,200 dependents of these small businesses. If the trust is not able to properly reserve funds for the future, some of these businesses could be forced to drop out as premiums rise higher and higher and the plan is unable to offset those increases with the reserves.

The legislation we are introducing today would correct this problem by providing that medical benefit plans of bona fide associations may have a reserve of up to 35 percent. This amount is designed to give association health plans the flexibility they need without raising the potential for abuse.

In the face of rising health care costs, employers that offer health coverage to their employees are struggling to maintain these benefits, and those who do not offer coverage find the cost of providing this important advantage increasingly out of reach. With the recent 59 percent spike in health care costs over the past five years, employers have had to resort to various cost-cutting moves in order to keep providing health care benefits. The IRS regulations affecting 10-or- more employer health benefit plans could strike a devastating blow to many small businesses, forcing them to stop providing health care benefits altogether, or at least making the coverage more expensive and/or less available to employees.

This legislation was developed with bipartisan support. It is noncontroversial. It corrects a problem created by a well-meaning regulation that inadvertently overreached its target. I urge all of my colleagues to help us correct this error and not allow medical benefit health plans offered by small business associations to be forced to shut down, leaving thousands of employees facing higher costs for medical coverage, or worse, no coverage at all.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to give my enthusiastic vote of support for President Bush's nominee to be this Nation's first Director of National Intelligence. I have known Ambassador Negroponte for over 20 years, and his professional career as one of our Nation's best diplomats began 20 years earlier. And rarely have I voted in support of a Presidential nominee with greater confidence. I trust that my colleagues will lend their support unanimously to the President's selection for a position we are anxious to fill.

As he assumes the position we created last year to unify the intelligence community's capabilities as they have never been unified before, I offer Ambassador Negroponte my complete support, with three points to consider.

First, as I have told the nominee, this will be the most difficult job he will ever hold. And I say this to the man who has just returned from serving as our first ambassador to a liberated Iraq. During Ambassador Negroponte's nomination hearing two weeks ago, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, who also has my greatest respect, while reviewing the job requirements for the new position of DNI, candidly asked the nominee: ``Why would you want this job?''

The answer, for those who know him, is that Ambassador Negroponte has always responded to the call by his country to take on difficult challenges. And we in the Senate have supported him by confirming him, to date, seven times.

Second, as I also told the nominee, and I have said to my colleagues: Osama bin Laden is not quaking in his hideaway because we have created the position of Director of National Intelligence. Let us be candid to ourselves about this. Too often in Washington, a bureaucratic response is mistaken for a solution. I hope we all recognize, after the years of discussing reform, that the legislation we passed last year initiates the beginning, not the end of reform.

And this leads to my third point. Ambassador Negroponte's mission, once we confirm him, is to take the elements of the intelligence community and de-Balkanize them. His mission will be to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the intelligence community parts. He will do

this by achieving what we call jointness between all parts of the community. When he does that--and this will have to do as much with creating new doctrine, and creating community culture that integrates this doctrine--then will our already impressive elements we have in our community be able to advance our security. Only then will we be creating the 21st century global intelligence capabilities that will make bin Laden's inevitable successors and wannabees sweat and run.

In my conversations with Ambassador Negroponte about his new brief, I have shared some of my ideas with him, and I have found him to be welcoming of these and all ideas. He understands the problems we face, as he has been a consumer of intelligence for most of his career, and he has spent his last tour in Iraq confronting the challenge of multiple armed groups dedicated to collaborating against us. I believe he knows what we need, and I know he is determined to take the impressive technological and human capacities already in place in our intelligence community and take it to the level necessary to give the American public a strategic intelligence capability we need and must have.

I believe Ambassador Negroponte has always served this country honorably. As we confirm him today, which I trust we will, I offer him my support and, once again, gratitude for choosing to serve his country in one of the most challenging positions in our history.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with Senators Feinstein, Specter, Kennedy, and Harkin to introduce the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This bill could help usher in the next great era of medical treatment. At the same time, it will criminalize the offensive practice of reproductive cloning.

If you remember when Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, you will recall what a revolutionary step that was, to be able to stop ravaging diseases before they hit their victims. It led to a whole new way of practicing medicine and paved the way for the vaccines and treatments that we take for granted today.

I believe we are on the verge of a similar step, a new generation in medical research and treatment, thanks to the incredible potential of stem cells. Stem cell research--particularly, embryonic stem cell research--holds great promise. To quote Nobel Laureate Dr. Harold Varmus, ``The development of cell lines that may produce almost every tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life.''

As Dr. Varmus noted, embryonic stem cells appear to have the amazing potential to transform themselves into any of the more than 200 types of cells that form the human body. These cells

could be the key to understanding much about human health and disease and may yield new diagnostic tests, treatments, and cures for diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, autoimmune diseases, and many, many others.

Stem cell research could potentially be the scientific advance that takes the practice of medicine not just to the next level, but to five or ten levels above and beyond. Like my colleagues, I believe there is an urgent need for uniformity in the rules governing stem cell research in America. But let me just stress one aspect of that need: ethics. Without the National Institutes of Health setting the ethical guidelines for stem cell research, we invite a host of problems. Most of us feel strongly that human reproductive cloning is wrong, for example. But where should the lines be drawn with regard to embryonic stem cell research--particularly, somatic cell nuclear transfer and the use of cell lines derived from IVF embryos?

The NIH is the obvious and crucial choice to help set the ethical boundaries. Our bill will ban outright any attempt at bringing to life a cloned human being. It will also prohibit research on any embryo created through somatic cell nuclear transfer beyond 14 days, require informed consent of donors, prohibit profiteering from donated eggs, and mandate separation of the egg collection site from the research laboratory.

The NIH will help determine other suitable ethical guidelines in allowing this critical research to go forward with Federal funding and at federally-funded institutions. There is no question in my mind that, when they do, the rest of the world will follow.

Now, the last time we introduced this bill, there was interest in the fact that I, as a strongly pro-life senator, would be the lead sponsor. I think we have put that issue behind us, as more pro-life lawmakers have expressed their support for this research. The fact is, I have never believed that life begins in a Petri dish. And as I travel across my home State of Utah, more and more Utahns, whether they are pro-life or not, come up to me and say, ``Orrin, we're with you on this. You're doing the right thing.''

That support is building across the country, and we must act. If we do not seize this opportunity, other countries could take the leading role in medicine's next great advance. We will lose the chance to set ethical guidelines, we will lose doctors to overseas research institutions, and most importantly, we will lose the chance to offer new hope to American and other patients who are waiting in desperation for treatments and cures.

I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill, and I look forward to the work ahead.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with Senators Feinstein, Specter, Kennedy, and Harkin to introduce the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005. This bill could help usher in the next great era of medical treatment. At the same time, it will criminalize the offensive practice of reproductive cloning.

If you remember when Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, you will recall what a revolutionary step that was, to be able to stop ravaging diseases before they hit their victims. It led to a whole new way of practicing medicine and paved the way for the vaccines and treatments that we take for granted today.

I believe we are on the verge of a similar step, a new generation in medical research and treatment, thanks to the incredible potential of stem cells. Stem cell research--particularly, embryonic stem cell research--holds great promise. To quote Nobel Laureate Dr. Harold Varmus, ``The development of cell lines that may produce almost every tissue of the human body is an unprecedented scientific breakthrough. It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life.''

As Dr. Varmus noted, embryonic stem cells appear to have the amazing potential to transform themselves into any of the more than 200 types of cells that form the human body. These cells

could be the key to understanding much about human health and disease and may yield new diagnostic tests, treatments, and cures for diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, autoimmune diseases, and many, many others.

Stem cell research could potentially be the scientific advance that takes the practice of medicine not just to the next level, but to five or ten levels above and beyond. Like my colleagues, I believe there is an urgent need for uniformity in the rules governing stem cell research in America. But let me just stress one aspect of that need: ethics. Without the National Institutes of Health setting the ethical guidelines for stem cell research, we invite a host of problems. Most of us feel strongly that human reproductive cloning is wrong, for example. But where should the lines be drawn with regard to embryonic stem cell research--particularly, somatic cell nuclear transfer and the use of cell lines derived from IVF embryos?

The NIH is the obvious and crucial choice to help set the ethical boundaries. Our bill will ban outright any attempt at bringing to life a cloned human being. It will also prohibit research on any embryo created through somatic cell nuclear transfer beyond 14 days, require informed consent of donors, prohibit profiteering from donated eggs, and mandate separation of the egg collection site from the research laboratory.

The NIH will help determine other suitable ethical guidelines in allowing this critical research to go forward with Federal funding and at federally-funded institutions. There is no question in my mind that, when they do, the rest of the world will follow.

Now, the last time we introduced this bill, there was interest in the fact that I, as a strongly pro-life senator, would be the lead sponsor. I think we have put that issue behind us, as more pro-life lawmakers have expressed their support for this research. The fact is, I have never believed that life begins in a Petri dish. And as I travel across my home State of Utah, more and more Utahns, whether they are pro-life or not, come up to me and say, ``Orrin, we're with you on this. You're doing the right thing.''

That support is building across the country, and we must act. If we do not seize this opportunity, other countries could take the leading role in medicine's next great advance. We will lose the chance to set ethical guidelines, we will lose doctors to overseas research institutions, and most importantly, we will lose the chance to offer new hope to American and other patients who are waiting in desperation for treatments and cures.

I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill, and I look forward to the work ahead.

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

How much time remains?

I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to finish my statement if it goes a little bit longer.

Mr. President, in Lewis Carroll's book ``Through the Looking Glass,'' Humpty Dumpty has a famous exchange with Alice in which he says:

When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--

neither more nor less.

Many partisans in the debate over judicial nominations or appointments in the Senate and among interest groups, particularly, have the same attitude. Let me offer two examples. One is, they play games with the word ``filibuster.'' The current filibusters against judicial nominations have four features: First, they involve defeating attempts to end debate such as defeating a motion to invoke cloture under rule XXII; second, they target nominations with clear bipartisan majority support that would be approved if there were a confirmation vote; three, they are not about debating these nominations but about defeating them; and fourth, these filibusters are completely partisan, organized, and driven by party leaders.

For 2 years, Democrats have claimed these filibusters are nothing new, that they happened before the 108th Congress. Last Friday, the distinguished assistant minority leader Senator Durbin offered his evidence. He printed in the Record a document titled ``History of Filibusters and Judges.'' It was a list of 12 judicial nominations which it said ``needed 60 (or more) votes--cloture--in order to end a filibuster.''

Yet these are filibusters only if, as Humpty Dumpty put it, the word filibuster means whatever you choose it to mean.

Listed first is the 1881 nomination of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Matthews shortly before leaving office and the Judiciary Committee postponed consideration. Hayes' successor, President James Garfield, renominated Matthews on March 14, 1881, and the Senate confirmed him on May 12. That is hardly a filibuster, yet that is the big news. They have looked so hard to try to find some justification for the inappropriate actions they have taken in the Senate.

Two days ago, Senator Nelson of Florida repeated Senator Durbin's claim that this was the first judicial nomination filibuster in American history. That claim also appears on the Web site of the leftwing Alliance for Justice whose president is shopping it around on the talk radio circuit.

This claim is incomprehensible. There was no cloture vote on the Matthews nomination for a very simple reason: Our cloture rule would not exist, would not even come into existence, for another 36 years. Nor were 60 votes needed even for confirmation since the Senate contained only 76 Members.

If, as Senator Durbin apparently urges, we today use the Matthews nomination as a model, we would debate judicial nominations, including those resubmitted after a Presidential election, and then vote them up or down because that is what happened in the Matthews case they used as an example of a filibuster. Humpty Dumpty would be proud of them.

The other nominations on Senator Durbin's list fare no better. Appeals court nominees Rosemary Barkett and Daniel Manion are on the filibuster list even though we did not take a cloture vote on them. Both of them were confirmed and currently sit on the bench.

Eight others, including Republican nominee Edward Carnes and Democratic nominee Stephen Breyer, are on the list even though the Senate voted to invoke cloture on their nominations. The purpose was to get to the vote up and down.

Abe Fortas is on the list even though his nomination was withdrawn after a failed cloture vote showed he did not have majority support and the opposition was solidly bipartisan--almost as many Democrats as there were Republicans. It was not an all-Democrat filibuster such as these have been.

Here is the kicker: Eleven of the 112 nominees on Senator Durbin's filibuster list were confirmed by the Senate--all 11 of them--with 9 of them sitting on the Federal bench today. And as for Fortas, President Lyndon Johnson withdrew his nomination, not because there was a filibuster, because no less an authority than Robert Griffin, former Senator from Michigan, who had a reputation of impeccable honesty, has said that there was no filibuster. They had the votes to defeat Fortas up and down. They wanted 2 more days of debate so they could make the case better, but Fortas was going to be defeated up and down. So there was no filibuster there either.

But even if there were, and even if you could stretch it and say there were, it was a bipartisan filibuster, if you could use the term filibuster, with almost as many Democrats as Republicans voting against Fortas. But I would take Senator Griffin's word on that, a man of impeccable honesty, who said there was no intent to filibuster by any Republican or Democrat on that nomination.

None of these situations bears any resemblance to the filibuster of majority-supported judicial nominations underway today.

Let me put this as clearly as I can. Not taking a cloture vote is no precedent for taking a cloture vote. Ending debate is no precedent for not ending debate. Confirming judicial nominations is no precedent for not confirming judicial nominations. And withdrawing nominations lacking majority support is no precedent for refusing to vote on nominations that have majority support.

The second word they play on is ``extremists.'' Democrats and their leftwing interest group allies tell us they only use the filibuster against what they call extremist nominees. Trying to define this label, however, is like trying to nail Jell-O to a cactus in the Utah desert. Like the Constitution in the hand of an activist judge, it means whatever you want it to mean.

No matter what the word means, this word extremist, Senators who truly believe a judicial nominee is an extremist may vote against him. They have a right to vote against anybody they think is an extremist. But this is no argument for refusing to vote in the first place.

As our colleague Senator Kennedy said in February, 1998:

We owe it to Americans across the country to give these

nominees a vote. If our . . . colleagues don't like them,

vote against them. But give them the vote.

I wonder why the change today? I think he meant that statement back then. Why doesn't he mean it today?

In September, 1999, the Judiciary Committee ranking member Senator Leahy similarly said our oath of office requires us to vote up or down on judicial nominations. Why the change today? It seems to me he meant it back then.

Priscilla Owen, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, was reelected to the Texas Supreme Court in 2000, with 84 percent of the vote. There was no major party opposition, and the endorsement of every major newspaper in the State of Texas. Yet her opponents on the other side call her an extremist.

No fewer than 15 presidents of the State bar of Texas, Democrats and Republicans, strongly endorse her nomination. Yet these opponents call her an extremist.

She has been praised by groups such as the Texas Association of Defense Counsel and Legal Aid of Central Texas. Yet her opponents call her an extremist.

The American Bar Association, often referred to by our friends on the other side as the ``gold standard'' to determine whether a person can sit on the bench, unanimously gave Justice Owen its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' This means she has outstanding legal ability and breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity, and such qualities as compassion, openmindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law. Yet some of the very Democrats who once said the ABA rating was the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now call Justice Owen an extremist.

Another nominee branded an extremist is California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. She is the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers. She attended segregated schools before receiving her law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles--in other words, UCLA. She has spent a quarter century in public service, serving in all three branches of State government.

Off the bench, she has given speeches in which she expressed certain ideas through vivid images, strong rhetoric, and provocative argument. Yet it is what she does on the bench that matters most, and there she has been an evenhanded, judicious, and impartial justice on the California Supreme Court.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley knows the difference and recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

But however inflammatory her remarks outside the courtroom,

Brown's legal opinions show a willingness to vote against

conservative views, particularly in criminal cases, when

justice demands it.

In recent terms, Justice Brown has written more majority opinions than any of her colleagues on the California Supreme Court. Yet some in this body brand her an extremist. How can that be? Again, Humpty Dumpty would be proud of this type of misuse of words.

A group of California law professors, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, wrote to our Judiciary Committee to say that Justice Brown's strongest credential is her openmindedness and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation ``even when her personal views conflict with those arguments.'' Yet some leftwing extremist groups call her an extremist.

A diverse group of her current and former judicial colleagues wrote us that Justice Brown is ``a jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias, and with an even hand.'' It is no wonder that 76 percent of her fellow Californians voted to retain her in her State's highest court. Yet her opponents call her an extremist.

If words mean anything, if we in the Senate really want to have a meaningful and responsible debate about such important things, then we should stop playing games with words such as ``filibuster'' or ``extremist.'' There is no precedent whatsoever for these partisan, organized filibusters intended to defeat majority supported judicial nominations and, I might add, bipartisan majority supported judicial nominations.

If Senators believe such highly qualified nominees, who know the difference between personal and judicial opinions and are widely praised for their integrity and impartiality, are extremists, then they should vote against them. But these people should be given an opportunity by having an up-and-down vote. Let's have a full and fair debate. Perhaps the critics will win the day against one or more of these nominees. I doubt it. But we must vote. That is what advise and consent means.

Mr. President, as I close, let me return to the 1881 Matthews nomination for a moment, the one they have had to stretch to try to claim was a filibuster.

In the 47th Congress, a Senate equally divided between Republicans and Democrats confirmed Justice Matthews by a single vote. No doubt, some opponents called him many things, perhaps even an extremist. Well, I doubt that because that has not happened until President Bush became President, as far as I can see in the way it has happened here. But we settled the controversy surrounding the Matthews nomination the old- fashioned way--not by filibustering but by debating and voting up and down. There is no question we should return to that standard.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is with a sense of honor that my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, and I rise to introduce a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.

I am proud and privileged to be working again with my California colleague on this important proposal. Among our principal cosponsors are our colleagues Senator Thune and Senator Talent. It is heartening to us to see some of the Senate's newest Members come to this issue with the same passion that its original supporters still feel.

This amendment is truly bipartisan. Today, we count 51 original cosponsors of this resolution. And, nearly two-thirds of the Members of this body have indicated their support. Those numbers seem to grow with each passing year.

No doubt, some will still argue that this amendment is unnecessary. Fortunately, that refrain is gradually losing its punch.

When this amendment eventually passes the Senate, as I believe that it will, our victory will not be attributed to the passions of the moment. Rather, it will be due to the tireless efforts of citizens committed to convincing their elected representatives that this amendment matters.

I have heard from some Utahans who love our country's flag but are opposed to amending the Constitution. To them I would say, amending the Constitution should never be taken lightly. Yet after serious study of the issue, I have concluded there is no other way to guarantee that our flag is protected, as I will discuss in a few minutes.

And, indeed, guaranteeing the physical integrity of the flag is a cause worth fighting for. The American people seem to understand what the opponents of this amendment fail to grasp. This amendment is a necessary statement that citizens still have some control over the destiny of this Nation and in maintaining the traditions and symbols that have helped to bind us together in all our diversity for over 200 years.

Those who oppose protecting the flag through a constitutional amendment are probably not aware of our constitutional history. Indeed, for most of America's history, our Nation's laws guaranteed the physical integrity of the American flag.

These were laws no one questioned. No one every questioned that the simple act of providing legal protection for the flag, a unique symbol of our ties as a Nation, could somehow violate the Constitution.

We should take a moment and recall what we were taught about the flag as schoolchildren. Our flag's 13 stripes show our origins. We started as 13 separate colonies that first became separate States and then one Nation through the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The 50 stars on the field of blue represent what we have become: a Nation unified. And over the past 230 years, we have become ever more united in our commitment to the extension of liberty and equality.

Among all of our differences, differences frequently reflected in this body, we do remain one Nation undivided and indivisible, and our flag is a simple but profound statement of that union. That is why we open the Senate each day by pledging our allegiance to the flag. It is a reminder of all that we have in common.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens understood the significance of the flag's status when he wrote:

A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and

national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize

the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the

special history that has animated the growth and power of

those ideas . . . So it is with the American flag. It is more

than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and

the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies

into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal

opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for

other peoples who share our aspirations.

There is a certain wisdom to Justice Stevens' statement that our constituents immediately grasp. Some polls show that over 80 percent of the American people support an amendment to protect the flag.

Its unique character is represented in the diversity of the groups that have worked over the years to bring this amendment to fruition. Veterans, police, African Americans, Polish Americans, farmers, and so many more diverse groups see in the flag a symbol of our Nation; they understand that it is perfectly consistent with our constitutional traditions for us to protect it.

Unfortunately, in 1989 the Supreme Court intervened and ovrrode every State law barring desecration of the American flag.

None of these States has restricted first amendment political speech in any way.

Their laws did not lead us down some slippery slope that would result in restraints on political opinions.

These States drew reasonable distinctions between political speech and inflammatory and frequently violent acts.

Yet in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that a Texas statute, and others like it, that barred desecration of the American flag, violated core first amendment principles. That certainly would have been news to those who wrote the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It was news, bad news, to the American people as well.

So in response to this imprudent decision, the Senate acted quickly and passed The Flag Protection Act. It became law on October 28, 1989.

Then, in 1990, the Court struck down even this legislation in United States v. Eichman.

And that is why a constitutional amendment has become necessary.

With due respect to our courts, and to my colleagues who continue to support these decisions, these legal arguments against flag protection just do not hold water.

Detractors of our amendment contend that the first amendment guarantees the right to burn the American flag. It does no such thing.

They contend it would carve out an exception to the first amendment as some say. It would not. Rather, it would reaffirm what was understood not only by those who ratified the Constitution but also by citizens of today: that the first amendment never guaranteed such expressive conduct. Whether one is an originalist or whether one believes in a living Constitution, this argument falls short.

The American people have long distinguished between the first amendment's guarantee of an individual's right to speak his or her mind and the repulsive expression of desecrating the flag. For many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 State legislatures passed statutes prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, and our political speech thrived. It was just as robust as it is today.

Yet in 1989, the Supreme Court's novel interpretation of the first amendment concluded that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts are no longer capable of making these reasonable distinctions, distinctions that we frequently make in this body such as when we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even in the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries.

The American people created the Constitution, and they reserved to themselves the right to amend the Constitution when they saw fit. Is it wrong to give the American people the opportunity to review whether the Supreme Court got it right in this case? I think not.

The fact is, a Senator does not take an oath to support and defend the holdings of the Supreme Court. We take an oath to support the Constitution. And, it is entirely appropriate that when we think the Court gets it wrong, we correct it through proper constitutional devices, devices set out in the Constitution itself . . . Though it has been forgotten over the years, this is hardly a radical idea. It was one supported by the founders of both the Republican and Democratic parties, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

As some in this body have noted, our courts are now frequently attempting to identify a national consensus to justify contemporary interpretations of our constitutional guarantees. The progress of this amendment to protect the flag demonstrates to me at least just how such a consensus is supposed to develop. Through argument, through give and take, through debate--over time the American people, as reflected in the actions of their representatives, have become more sure than ever that they should have the opportunity to protect their flag through moderate and reasonable legislation.

After September 11, citizens proudly flew the flag, defying the terrorist challenge to our core values of liberty and equality, and confirming its unique status as a symbol of our nation's strength and purpose. In the struggle that has followed, our flag stands as a reminder of the many personal sacrifices made to protect and strengthen our nation.

And so, to protect this symbol, I am today introducing this amendment.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Thune, and Talent for their work on this. I urge those who are not cosponsors of this amendment to keep an open mind as we debate this resolution.

It is my hope that the Judiciary committee will move the resolution to the floor.

And, in turn, I ask that our leadership ensure this resolution gets a vote on the floor.

Mr. President, it is with a sense of honor that my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, and I rise to introduce a bipartisan constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.

I am proud and privileged to be working again with my California colleague on this important proposal. Among our principal cosponsors are our colleagues Senator Thune and Senator Talent. It is heartening to us to see some of the Senate's newest Members come to this issue with the same passion that its original supporters still feel.

This amendment is truly bipartisan. Today, we count 51 original cosponsors of this resolution. And, nearly two-thirds of the Members of this body have indicated their support. Those numbers seem to grow with each passing year.

No doubt, some will still argue that this amendment is unnecessary. Fortunately, that refrain is gradually losing its punch.

When this amendment eventually passes the Senate, as I believe that it will, our victory will not be attributed to the passions of the moment. Rather, it will be due to the tireless efforts of citizens committed to convincing their elected representatives that this amendment matters.

I have heard from some Utahans who love our country's flag but are opposed to amending the Constitution. To them I would say, amending the Constitution should never be taken lightly. Yet after serious study of the issue, I have concluded there is no other way to guarantee that our flag is protected, as I will discuss in a few minutes.

And, indeed, guaranteeing the physical integrity of the flag is a cause worth fighting for. The American people seem to understand what the opponents of this amendment fail to grasp. This amendment is a necessary statement that citizens still have some control over the destiny of this Nation and in maintaining the traditions and symbols that have helped to bind us together in all our diversity for over 200 years.

Those who oppose protecting the flag through a constitutional amendment are probably not aware of our constitutional history. Indeed, for most of America's history, our Nation's laws guaranteed the physical integrity of the American flag.

These were laws no one questioned. No one every questioned that the simple act of providing legal protection for the flag, a unique symbol of our ties as a Nation, could somehow violate the Constitution.

We should take a moment and recall what we were taught about the flag as schoolchildren. Our flag's 13 stripes show our origins. We started as 13 separate colonies that first became separate States and then one Nation through the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The 50 stars on the field of blue represent what we have become: a Nation unified. And over the past 230 years, we have become ever more united in our commitment to the extension of liberty and equality.

Among all of our differences, differences frequently reflected in this body, we do remain one Nation undivided and indivisible, and our flag is a simple but profound statement of that union. That is why we open the Senate each day by pledging our allegiance to the flag. It is a reminder of all that we have in common.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens understood the significance of the flag's status when he wrote:

A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and

national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize

the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the

special history that has animated the growth and power of

those ideas . . . So it is with the American flag. It is more

than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and

the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies

into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal

opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for

other peoples who share our aspirations.

There is a certain wisdom to Justice Stevens' statement that our constituents immediately grasp. Some polls show that over 80 percent of the American people support an amendment to protect the flag.

Its unique character is represented in the diversity of the groups that have worked over the years to bring this amendment to fruition. Veterans, police, African Americans, Polish Americans, farmers, and so many more diverse groups see in the flag a symbol of our Nation; they understand that it is perfectly consistent with our constitutional traditions for us to protect it.

Unfortunately, in 1989 the Supreme Court intervened and ovrrode every State law barring desecration of the American flag.

None of these States has restricted first amendment political speech in any way.

Their laws did not lead us down some slippery slope that would result in restraints on political opinions.

These States drew reasonable distinctions between political speech and inflammatory and frequently violent acts.

Yet in Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that a Texas statute, and others like it, that barred desecration of the American flag, violated core first amendment principles. That certainly would have been news to those who wrote the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

It was news, bad news, to the American people as well.

So in response to this imprudent decision, the Senate acted quickly and passed The Flag Protection Act. It became law on October 28, 1989.

Then, in 1990, the Court struck down even this legislation in United States v. Eichman.

And that is why a constitutional amendment has become necessary.

With due respect to our courts, and to my colleagues who continue to support these decisions, these legal arguments against flag protection just do not hold water.

Detractors of our amendment contend that the first amendment guarantees the right to burn the American flag. It does no such thing.

They contend it would carve out an exception to the first amendment as some say. It would not. Rather, it would reaffirm what was understood not only by those who ratified the Constitution but also by citizens of today: that the first amendment never guaranteed such expressive conduct. Whether one is an originalist or whether one believes in a living Constitution, this argument falls short.

The American people have long distinguished between the first amendment's guarantee of an individual's right to speak his or her mind and the repulsive expression of desecrating the flag. For many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 State legislatures passed statutes prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, and our political speech thrived. It was just as robust as it is today.

Yet in 1989, the Supreme Court's novel interpretation of the first amendment concluded that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts are no longer capable of making these reasonable distinctions, distinctions that we frequently make in this body such as when we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even in the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries.

The American people created the Constitution, and they reserved to themselves the right to amend the Constitution when they saw fit. Is it wrong to give the American people the opportunity to review whether the Supreme Court got it right in this case? I think not.

The fact is, a Senator does not take an oath to support and defend the holdings of the Supreme Court. We take an oath to support the Constitution. And, it is entirely appropriate that when we think the Court gets it wrong, we correct it through proper constitutional devices, devices set out in the Constitution itself . . . Though it has been forgotten over the years, this is hardly a radical idea. It was one supported by the founders of both the Republican and Democratic parties, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

As some in this body have noted, our courts are now frequently attempting to identify a national consensus to justify contemporary interpretations of our constitutional guarantees. The progress of this amendment to protect the flag demonstrates to me at least just how such a consensus is supposed to develop. Through argument, through give and take, through debate--over time the American people, as reflected in the actions of their representatives, have become more sure than ever that they should have the opportunity to protect their flag through moderate and reasonable legislation.

After September 11, citizens proudly flew the flag, defying the terrorist challenge to our core values of liberty and equality, and confirming its unique status as a symbol of our nation's strength and purpose. In the struggle that has followed, our flag stands as a reminder of the many personal sacrifices made to protect and strengthen our nation.

And so, to protect this symbol, I am today introducing this amendment.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Thune, and Talent for their work on this. I urge those who are not cosponsors of this amendment to keep an open mind as we debate this resolution.

It is my hope that the Judiciary committee will move the resolution to the floor.

And, in turn, I ask that our leadership ensure this resolution gets a vote on the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Inouye in introducing ``The Wakefield Act'', which reauthorizes the Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program. It has been 20 years since Senator Inouye and I first worked for passage of the original bill authorizing the EMSC program. We embarked upon this partnership after realizing that there was a critical gap in our Nation's ability to provide emergency medical services for the most precious segment of our population: our children.

Since the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act was first passed, its programs have spread across the nation, enhancing the care received in the more than 31 million visits made by children and adolescents to our nation's emergency departments every year. In part due to this program, the pediatric death rate from injuries has fallen 40 percent over the last 20 years. Imagine that--40 percent! In that light, it is extremely disappointing that President Bush would recommend eliminating funding for this very important program.

More than 30 groups have endorsed this legislation, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Surgeons, Brain Injury Association of America, Emergency Nurses Association, Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, Rural Metro Corporation, Society for Pediatric Research, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

While much has been accomplished, more remains to be done. Children's physiology and response to illness and injury differ significantly from those of

adults, necessitating specialized training to recognize and treat these patients properly. Ninety percent of the children who require emergency care receive it in general hospitals, not in free-standing specialty children's hospitals. Of those hospitals that lack pediatric intensive care units, only 47 percent have appropriate written transfer agreements with hospitals that do have such specialized units. One- third of states do not have a physician available on-call 24 hours to provide medical direction to EMTs or other non-physician emergency care providers. Of those states that do, many do not have full state coverage.

It is clear that despite the progress made since the Emergency Medical Services for Children Act was first enacted, deficiencies in our pediatric emergency care system remain. What is more, the need for a strong and healthy population, as well as a robust, prepared, and responsive health care system, has never been greater. This cannot occur in the absence of an emergency medical structure that is fully trained and ready to care for our nation's youth.

The Wakefield Act fills this role by supporting states' efforts to improve the care of children within their emergency medical services systems. EMSC-supported projects include strengthening emergency care infrastructures, assessing local provider needs, and developing comprehensive education and training modules. The impact of this program is undeniable: in 2003, 78 percent of States reported that either all or some of their pediatric emergency training programs were dependent on EMSC grant funding.

The EMSC program also ensures timely distribution of best practices and lessons learned in the area of pediatric emergency care, as well as facilitating the sharing of innovations through its national resource center. Furthermore, EMSC-supported projects have a proven record of success at the State and local level. For example, in 1997, no State disaster plan had specific pediatric components, but by 2003, 13 EMSC projects were working actively with their State's disaster preparedness offices to address children's needs in the event of a disaster.

I am proud that my home State of Utah has played a vital role in advancing the level of emergency medical care for children and teenagers. Working with the Emergency Medical Services for Children program, Utah has participated in the Intermountain Regional Emergency Medical Services for Children Coordinating Council. The University of Utah is home to both the National Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center and the Central Data Management Coordinating Center for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. Utah-based projects also helped pioneer the development of training materials on caring for special needs pediatric patients.

Over the course of its 20 year history, the Emergency Medical Services for Children program has made great strides in improving the lives of our Nation's children. It has largely eliminated discrepancies in regulations among States, establishing a national norm and making children's issues in emergency medical care a priority. The national EMSC program is a dynamic and flexible program that has proved to be responsive to both the Nation's and the individual States' needs. The program has funded pediatric emergency care improvement initiatives in every State, territory and the District of Columbia, as well as national improvement programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this important and necessary legislation.

Mr. President, when Pope John Paul II died over the weekend, the Catholic Church lost its spiritual shepherd. The world lost a giant of a man. As successor of St. Peter, he began his papacy by reminding the world to ``Be not afraid.'' The captive people of Eastern Europe and Latin America heard that message loud and clear. And as he prepared for his own death, he met his suffering with a fearlessness and hopefulness that was heard by us all.

For millions of American Catholics, including many Utahns, and many of my colleagues in this body, Pope John Paul II's passing represents the loss of a profound spiritual leader. My prayers are with all of you and with the Pope.

For non-Catholics like myself the Pope's death is a cause for mourning as well. His was an example of strength, commitment, and moral courage that we will all miss and that we will never forget. The Communist tyranny that the Pope ultimately triumphed over once mocked the power of the Catholic Church, asking how many divisions the Pope had. While it is true that the Pope possessed no military might, his

witness to hope, his faith that life would triumph over death, that the light would prevail over the darkness, was more powerful than any army.

As a result of his simple faith, this humble man from Krakow, Poland emerged from behind the Iron Curtain, became the first non-Italian Pope in nearly 500 years, and concluded his life as one of the towering figures of the Twentieth Century. I have no doubt that his example will guide us in the Twenty-first Century as well, and I understand why it is that so many Catholics are already referring to him as John Paul the Great.

My career as a public servant began shortly before John Paul II became Pope. I am fortunate to have spent time with him on two occasions over the years, and so it was no surprise to me to watch the world's and this country's admiration and love for him grow. I was struck by his joyful and his charitable spirit. Yet behind that peaceful demeanor was a determination to challenge the totalitarian assaults on human dignity that stained much of the last century.

As a young man he was witness to the Nazi terror in his native Poland, and later as Pope he went to Poland and encouraged the Solidarity movement. He understood that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and that no matter how small, old or weak, no person is without significance. I have no doubt that his powerful witness to the dignity of all people contributed as much to the downfall of the horror of communism as anything we accomplished in Washington. A year after he assumed the papacy, John Paul II went to Poland and awakened a sleeping giant. Today, I hear that over a million thankful Poles are en route to Rome to pay their respects to their native son.

As the Pope grew older and he lost his youthful vigor, his own suffering served as a powerful reminder of the need to nurture a culture of life. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have heard this call. As President Bush put it the other day, it remains the duty of the strong to protect the weak.

It only took about twenty-four hours before some commentators came out to declare the Pope's legacy a mixed one. The Pope was too strident on certain issues, they say. He left certain groups unsatisfied. Perhaps. But I think that these criticisms really miss what this man was about. John Paul II reminded us of the meaning that our human lives can have. This truth is not something that you can focus group. The truth about the universe, about our duty to God and to our fellow man, is not something that you can triangulate.

Still, some fault the Pope for not being more like a politician. He was not accommodating enough. He should have compromised and found a middle ground. As elected officials, that is our charge. But as the spiritual head of the Catholic Church, the Pope's duty was greater than what we work to accomplish. He was a witness to truth. His message was not always one that people on either side of the aisle wanted to hear, but the call to the faithful is not often an easy one to swallow. The Pope reminded us of the splendor of truth. I think what is revealed in these criticisms of the Pope is the knee-jerk aversion by some to the very idea that there are eternal truths. The Pope should be commended, not criticized, for reminding us of them.

The talking heads have this exactly backward. They think that it was the Pope who was inconsistent because he was not easily labeled as politically liberal or conservative. It never occurs to them that it is we who are conflicted; that our divisions are something to be overcome. The Pope spoke to what Abraham Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. He was not someone seeking political advantage or gain. He sought peace and unity, and nowhere was this more clear than in his historic outreach to non-Catholic Christians, to the Jewish people, and to moderate Muslims.

Our commentators might not get this, but the world's people certainly do. As is clear from the different languages one hears in Rome as people wait to file past the Pope, this was a man who belonged to the world. And the Pope's trips to this country will never be forgotten. People in this country stood in the rain to attend papal masses in Boston and Miami, New Orleans and New York. Youth from around the world came to celebrate with him in Denver. Though this was a man with a universal message, I think that he had a certain American spirit as well. He was a kindred spirit. His faith in the future, and in the inherent dignity of man, made him at home with the American people, and it is appropriate that this nation, which was blessed with his visits on numerous occasions, will be flying its flags at half staff until his interment on Friday.

This weekend the Catholic Church lost its shepherd. For over a quarter of a century, Pope John Paul II watched over his flock. With his death this weekend, I am sure that there are some who feel lost, but they should not forget the Pope's reminder: ``Be not afraid.'' When he reminded his native Poles of this, they changed the course of history. In his passing we should take heed as well. We will miss him, and we will mourn, but we have faith that he is now at peace and at one with his Lord.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the concurrent budget resolution presently before the Senate.

I want to start by congratulating Senator Judd Gregg, the new chairman of the Budget Committee, along with the other members of that committee, for accomplishing the difficult task of putting together and reporting to the Senate a budget resolution that begins to address our spending and deficit challenges in a modest yet significant way.

As with many of my fellow Utahns, I am very concerned about the large and persistent deficits with which our Federal Government still wrestles. I continue to hear from constituents who seem discouraged that the Government has not been able to find more success in bringing the budget into balance, particularly after the several years of surplus we enjoyed in the latter part of the last decade.

Many Utahns have written to me to express their concerns that this generation is leaving a huge and growing burden on our children and grandchildren, one that perhaps will be too onerous for them to bear. As a long-time advocate of fiscal responsibility in families and in Government, I understand and agree with these concerns. The deficit and the mountain of public debt owed by the Federal Government do matter, and will make life harder for Americans in the future.

And so, those of us from Utah share a collective frustration that this budget does not make more progress toward cutting the deficit.

As I examine the budget resolution, however, I am struck by the fact that we, as a nation, are still facing turbulent conditions that seem to defy our

best efforts to control our fiscal destiny. As we get farther and farther from the monumental events of the early part of this decade that have shaped our current landscape in so many ways, perhaps it is becoming easier to think that things are slowly returning to normal in our country.

But we need to remember that this Nation is still at war, and we still face tremendous challenges in protecting our homeland from further terrorist attacks. These needs are paramount and eclipse even the importance of balancing the budget. This budget resolution reflects these facts and provides for increases, although a relatively modest 4.1 percent growth in defense and homeland security spending.

At the same time, the budget places a virtual freeze on the growth of the remainder of discretionary spending accounts. This is in stark contrast to recent years, where such spending has grown at a relatively high rate. I believe this nondefense/homeland security freeze is a very important feature of this budget. Even though this restraint is rather modest, it is being met with a great deal of concern from many who had hoped to see more growth in the programs that fall under this category.

The budget also makes some small progress in bringing mandatory spending under control. Over the 5-year budget period provided by this resolution, this type of spending growth is cut by $32 billion. Although this is just a fraction of the growth in entitlement spending projected over this period, it is significant that this budget represents the first attempt to cut mandatory spending growth since 1997.

The results of these changes on the deficit are not dramatic, but they are noteworthy. The President set a goal last year to cut the deficit for fiscal year 2004, which was $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP, in half within 5 years. The budget resolution before us projects this goal being met in fiscal year 2008 with a deficit of $258 billion that year, and falling to $208 billion by 2010. In relative terms, the deficit is projected to be 1.8 percent of GDP by 2008 and just 1.3 percent by 2010. While still too large, these deficits are certainly more manageable than those of recent years.

To meet these goals, the resolution provides some pretty tough discretionary spending caps for the next three fiscal years, and retains the pay-as-you-go rule from the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.

Some of my colleagues are questioning the need for the budget to provide for approximately $70 billion in tax relief over the next 5 years. We need this money set aside to prevent tax increases that would be damaging to our growing economy.

Specifically, two provisions that have shown to be very important to increasing Federal revenue growth and helping the economy to recover are set to expire at the end of 2008. These are the reduced tax rates for dividend income and capital gain income that were enacted as part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

If Congress allows these lower tax rates to expire, we would, in effect, be placing a significant tax increase on the economy. Capital gains rates would increase from a maximum of 15 percent to 20 percent, and the tax rate on dividends would leap from 15 percent to as high as 35 percent.

There is no doubt that these tax rate reductions, combined with the other tax cuts we passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 have contributed to the recovery of the economy. After declining for 3 years, 2001-2003, Federal collections began increasing again in 2004, rising by 5.5 percent that year. For the current fiscal year, 2005, revenues are projected to jump by an impressive 9.4 percent. Moreover, revenues are expected to increase by an average of 6.4 percent each year until the end of the decade. This demonstrates to me the wisdom of our earlier decisions to cut taxes to get the economy growing again.

Allowing tax rates to increase might seem to some to be a smart way to fight the deficit, but I believe these revenue trends illustrate that such a move would be counterproductive and exactly the wrong thing to do. Therefore, it is very important that this budget include the reconciliation instructions that provide the opportunity for the Finance Committee to report the legislation that will prevent these tax cuts from expiring.

I look forward to working my colleagues on the Finance Committee in crafting a bill to extend both the dividends and capital gains tax rate reductions, as well as extending other important tax provisions that expire later this year.

While this budget resolution perhaps does not go as far as I would like to see in reducing the deficit and addressing spending growth, it is probably as strong as we can make it. I also recognize that this resolution has to garner a majority of votes in both the Senate and the House for it to take effect. Each one of my colleagues also has his or her own ideas of what would be the best combination of spending priorities for this coming fiscal year. In the end, what counts is what we can get a majority of us to agree upon the lowest common denominator.

Given the circumstances, the balances achieved in the budget resolution may well be the best we can do. It is not perfect, but it is a start, and it deserves our support.

Mr. President, the narrow 51-49 vote on the budget resolution we just passed reveals the delicate balance that our leadership forged between spending restraints and the funding priorities of the American people. On the one hand, there is a clear need to dry up the red ink which threatens to plague our children, their children and generations to come. As the author of the Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment I am clearly aware of the need to maintain fiscal discipline.

At the same time, I also have a responsibility to the citizens of UT to make certain that important programs in our state receive the funding they need to operate on a sound basis.

Today, we cast many difficult votes which forced us to choose between those two competing priorities. One of those votes was on the Smith Medicaid amendment. I am extremely concerned about the $60 billion reduction in proposed spending growth for Medicaid in the President's budget. At the same time, it is important to note that even under the President's budget, Medicaid is projected to grow about 7 percent per year.

I feel that it is incumbent upon the Finance Committee and its members, Secretary Mike Leavitt and the President to work with States and communities to ensure that we preserve the safety net Medicaid offers to the elderly, the disabled and the low income. I have pledged to Chairman Chuck Grassley and Secretary Leavitt that I will work with them to ensure that there is adequate funding for this vital program. I am very concerned that we do right by this program which helps so many, many Utahns each year. We can't allow it to be torn apart.

Another difficult amendment facing the Senate today was the amendment offered by Senator Norm Coleman to restore funding in the budget for the Community Development Block Grant program, CDBG. As my colleagues are aware, I wrote to the Budget Committee and urged strongly that they include adequate room for the appropriators to fund the CDBG program. I was very disappointed that funding was not reflected in the budget reported by the Senate Budget Committee.

I consider the Community Development Block grant program to be an effective tool and an extremely important program for communities throughout the State of Utah. I feel it is important to note that the purpose of the Budget Resolution is to set out the framework for the FY 2006 priorities which will determine the allocations provided to each of the Appropriations Subcommittees. We all know it is very difficult to begin the appropriations process without having a budget in place to guide our work. Whether or not the final budget agreement which emerges from the House-Senate conference includes an explicit funding reference for the CDBG or not, action will turn to the Appropriations Committee which has the full authority, and indeed the responsibility, to provide funding for this program.

Let me make it perfectly clear to the communities in Utah that I will not drop my fight to secure adequate funding for the CDBG.

I want to assure my colleagues that my votes on the budget today do not reflect any lessened commitment on my part to the CDBG, Medicaid or other vital programs in UT.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tax Court Modernization Act. I am joined in this legislation by the Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and my colleague Senator Lincoln.

The United States Tax Court plays an important role in our tax system. However, it has been years since Congress has taken a good hard look at the Tax Court. This bipartisan piece of legislation will improve this Court in a number of ways, and I would like to take a moment to summarize some of its provisions.

First, the TCMA would make minor changes in the Tax Court's jurisdiction. These are small changes that will have a big impact on the Court's efficiency. For example, the bill would allow the Tax Court to hire employees on its own, just as other courts do. Currently, the Tax Court is forced to hire through the Executive Branch's Office of Personnel Management, entangling the executive power with the judicial power. Restoring the constitutional separation of powers in the hiring process will increase the independence of the Tax Court.

Second, the TCMA would improve the way that Tax Court judges receive retirement benefits and other non-salary benefits. I believe that Tax Court judges should be treated the same way that bankruptcy, Court of Federal Claims, and Article III judges are treated when it comes to fringe benefits.

Tax Court judges are often not provided with the same benefits as similarly appointed Article I and Article III judges. For example, Congress allows Article III, bankruptcy, and Court of Federal Claims judges to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan in addition to the Civil Service Retirement System, while Tax Court judges are ineligible to participate in this program. These disparities in the treatment of our Tax Court judges affect the Court's ability to attract and retain seasoned judges, as well as talented employees.

This legislation is non-controversial and is the result of many years of work. The Finance Committee passed the bill three separate times during the 108th Congress, but it unfortunately was not included in a vehicle that made it to enactment. Hopefully, we will be able to get these provisions to the President's desk this year.

I have spent many years observing the Federal judiciary. I have spent many years trying to improve the Judicial Branch of our government and to make it the very finest court system the world has ever known. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee on this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues, both on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole, to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the provisions of the U.S. Tax Court Modernization Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce ``The Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005.'' I am particularly gratified that Senators Dodd, Brownback, Harkin, and Specter have joined me as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. Since I first introduced this bill last Congress, there has been strong interest in Federal support for public cord blood banks as a widely accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research. The purpose of the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act is to create an easily accessible network to prepare, store, and distribute human umbilical cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and to support research using such cells.

Today, thousands of Americans receive and are saved by bone marrow transplants each year. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cell transplants are readily available, and they require less stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005 proposes to establish an inventory of 150,000 cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States. In conjunction with the 5 million registered bone marrow donors, this registry will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant. The inventory would provide a critical additional resource for those in need of transplants and allocate a certain proportion of units to sustain further research on cord blood stem cells.

In 2004, Congress asked the Institute of Medicine to provide an assessment of existing cord blood programs and inventories and to make recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of such programs. Following a year-long process of review and evaluation, the Institute of Medicine will soon issue recommendations on the best methods to create and implement this public cord blood bank network. I look forward to reviewing these recommendations and ensuring that they are appropriately reflected in any legislation.

Let me be clear--I am open to all options. It is my goal to create the best system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments by ensuring that the number of cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years.

The system will include a network of qualified donor banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system should educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation.

I also strongly endorse the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), which Congress created in 1986 and continues to fund. This registry already lists more than 42,000 units of umbilical cord blood and provides important patient advocacy and support services. It also provides an online service which allows physicians to compare potential cord blood matches with potential adult volunteer donor matches so that they can select the source of cells that best meets their patients' needs. Cord blood should be used to expand patient choices, not to restrict them. Patients, in consultation with their physicians, should have the ability to decide which is best for them.

The establishment of a national infrastructure for cord blood will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. And while this legislation is not perfect, it is my hope that its introduction will encourage discussions on cord blood and the federal government's role in helping to increase the inventory of cord blood units in the United States.

In my opinion, we must be sure that our nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the number of cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for cord blood transplantation in this country.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tax Court Modernization Act. I am joined in this legislation by the Chairman and Ranking Democrat of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and my colleague Senator Lincoln.

The United States Tax Court plays an important role in our tax system. However, it has been years since Congress has taken a good hard look at the Tax Court. This bipartisan piece of legislation will improve this Court in a number of ways, and I would like to take a moment to summarize some of its provisions.

First, the TCMA would make minor changes in the Tax Court's jurisdiction. These are small changes that will have a big impact on the Court's efficiency. For example, the bill would allow the Tax Court to hire employees on its own, just as other courts do. Currently, the Tax Court is forced to hire through the Executive Branch's Office of Personnel Management, entangling the executive power with the judicial power. Restoring the constitutional separation of powers in the hiring process will increase the independence of the Tax Court.

Second, the TCMA would improve the way that Tax Court judges receive retirement benefits and other non-salary benefits. I believe that Tax Court judges should be treated the same way that bankruptcy, Court of Federal Claims, and Article III judges are treated when it comes to fringe benefits.

Tax Court judges are often not provided with the same benefits as similarly appointed Article I and Article III judges. For example, Congress allows Article III, bankruptcy, and Court of Federal Claims judges to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan in addition to the Civil Service Retirement System, while Tax Court judges are ineligible to participate in this program. These disparities in the treatment of our Tax Court judges affect the Court's ability to attract and retain seasoned judges, as well as talented employees.

This legislation is non-controversial and is the result of many years of work. The Finance Committee passed the bill three separate times during the 108th Congress, but it unfortunately was not included in a vehicle that made it to enactment. Hopefully, we will be able to get these provisions to the President's desk this year.

I have spent many years observing the Federal judiciary. I have spent many years trying to improve the Judicial Branch of our government and to make it the very finest court system the world has ever known. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee on this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues, both on the Finance Committee and in the Senate as a whole, to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the provisions of the U.S. Tax Court Modernization Act.