Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of Representative Henry Hyde, who, as we all know, passed away last Thursday. I believe all those who knew Henry will remember him for his sincere moral convictions and his dedication to the country.

Representative Hyde was born in Chicago in 1924. He graduated from Georgetown University, where he was a standout on the basketball team that made it all the way to the 1943 National Championship game. He went on to obtain a law degree from Loyola University.

Henry was in the Navy during World War II, serving in combat in the Philippines. After the war, he served for more than 20 years in the Naval Reserve, eventually obtaining the rank of commander.

In 1974, he was elected to the House of Representatives where he would represent the citizens of the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois for 22 years. During his time in the House, he became known as a steadfast proponent of the rights of the unborn, authoring the Hyde Amendment, which, to this day, ensures that Federal taxpayer funds are not used in the performance of abortions. He was also a stalwart supporter of our Nation's military and firm believer in the need to uphold the rule of law.

Henry and I had the distinct privilege of having our chairmanships of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees overlap for a substantial period of time. We worked together on numerous pieces of legislation and I always enjoyed the passion and energy he brought to every issue. Henry was a very capable legislator and a man of deep convictions. Last month, President Bush honored Representative Hyde by awarding him our Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. During the ceremony, which Henry could not attend due to his declining health, the President described Henry as a ``powerful defender of life, a leading advocate for

a strong national defense, and an unwavering voice for liberty, democracy, and free enterprise around the world.''

While there were times that Representative Hyde found himself in the middle of divisive and fiercely partisan debates, I don't think that anyone would doubt that he always sought to stand behind his principles and to do what he believed was best for our country. I want to express my deepest condolences to Representative Hyde's family and my thanks for his years of service to our great Nation. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of Utah State Senator Ed Mayne, who, after a 9-month battle with lung cancer, passed away on the morning of Sunday, November 25. I speak on behalf of many citizens of my State who, over the years, had grown to respect Senator Mayne's support for American workers and his dedication to the State of Utah.

Senator Mayne was born in Magna, UT, in 1945. He graduated from Granger High School in West Valley City and played football for 2 years at Snow College in Ephraim, UT. In the mid-1960s, he got a job working on the track gang for Kennecott Copper in the Bingham Canyon mine. It was then that Senator Mayne became involved in organized labor.

In his early years at Kennecott, he became active in the local chapter of the United Steel Workers of America, quickly becoming the president of Local 485. In 1977, he became president of the entire chapter and, later that year, at the age of 32, he was named president of the AFL-CIO of Utah. He was, at that time, the youngest AFL-CIO chapter president in the country.

In 1994, Ed was elected to serve in the Utah State senate and was in the midst of his fourth term when he died. Throughout his time in the senate, he remained dedicated to improving the lives of workers and, while he had strong personal ties to organized labor, he was committed to serving both union and nonunion workers alike. He also devoted himself to serving poor people in Utah, working to, among other things, maintain State Medicaid benefits and to protect low-income borrowers from the exploitation of predatory lenders.

Ed Mayne was somewhat of an anomaly in Utah. He was a tried and true Democrat in one of the most Republican States in the country. However, even the most conservative Utah Republicans never doubted Ed's convictions, even when we disagreed with his position on certain issues. He left an indelible mark on the State of Utah and was a good example for all of us, Republicans and Democrats, who aspire to serve the public.

I had known Senator Mayne for his entire career in the Utah State senate. We disagreed with each other on many occasions, but there was never any animosity or hatred, just respect and friendship. We also agreed on several things and I cherished the opportunities I had to talk to him about pressing matters facing the State of Utah and sharing ideas of how to fix them.

The sentiments shared at Ed's funeral summarize our relationship very well when the eulogizer mentioned that Ed and I were very close friends and we liked each other very much. That is truly the way I felt about Ed.

I express my deepest condolences to Senator Mayne's family and my thanks for his years of service to the great State of Utah. I am grateful to have known such an outstanding public servant.

Mr. President, the AMT was initially designed to catch about 155 people who were not paying taxes but were immensely wealthy and getting all kinds of income every year. Today, there are 4 million people who are paying the AMT. If we don't do something about it, there will be 25 million tomorrow. To be honest with you, because we have delayed so long, we are going to be in a bind as far as even getting the software done, the paperwork done, the IRS work done to be able to give people their refunds this next year because of the delay we have had. I respect the distinguished chairman of the committee. It has been a very difficult committee to manage, and he has done as well as anybody I can imagine.

We need to fix the alternative minimum tax, the AMT. There is no argument in this chamber about that. If we fail to act, 25 million Americans might have to write checks to Uncle Sam for thousands of dollars.

So we agree on fixing the AMT.

But the devil is in the details, and I cannot support a plan that prevents a tax increase on millions of Americans by raising taxes on others.

Congress never anticipated having anywhere near this level of AMT revenues to begin with, so we should not be raising taxes permanently to make up for that phantom lost revenue.

We are well past time for serious action on the AMT.

Almost 3 weeks ago, I came to the floor to discuss the financial and political ramifications of Congress' failure to fix the AMT.

We had a crisis then.

It is worsening by the day.

Even if we were to patch the AMT today, the American people will suffer from our inaction.

We have known that the AMT train was coming down the tracks all year.

This failure to act is setting new standards for ineptitude.

Three weeks ago, the failure to patch the AMT was merely creating uncertainty for millions of Americans who would be subject to it if we dropped the ball.

Three weeks later, these poor folks are barely the half of it.

Now billions of dollars in tax refunds risk being delayed because of inaction.

On November 26--11 days ago the chairman of the IRS Oversight Board sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

His grim assessment of the situation is worth our review.

The filing season is expected to start on January 14, but that date is now in jeopardy.

IRS computer programs are set to process tax returns under current law.

The IRS cannot flip a switch and process millions of tax returns in January, when Congress changes the law on Christmas Eve.

According to the IRS Oversight Board, the IRS would be able to start processing tax returns within 7 weeks of the enactment of an AMT patch.

So if we were to enact an AMT patch today, tax filing season would start almost 2 weeks late.

That delay would lead to 6.7 million delayed tax returns and $17 billion in delayed refunds.

What if we delayed the start of tax season 1 more week?

Then we are looking at 15.5 million delayed tax returns and $39 billion in delayed refunds.

Push it back another 2 weeks--37.7 million delayed tax returns and $87 billion in refunds delayed.

Many Americans actually look forward to getting their W-2 in the mail. Their employer withholds too much money from their paycheck every year, and the W-2 allows them to file a return and get that money back.

And now with electronic filing, Americans are able to get those refunds even more quickly.

Utahns depend on their refunds.

They count on their refunds.

Undermining that confidence is much worse than a lump of coal in a stocking.

We are now in the Christmas season.

I am sure that the movie ``Christmas Vacation'' will be on television soon.

That movie contains a lesson that we should all heed.

In that movie, Clark Griswold, assumes he is going to get his annual Christmas bonus.

That Christmas bonus is as reliable as a weekly paycheck.

And when that bonus did not come, he--flat--out--went--nuts.

The political philosophy of Clark Griswold is one that I would commend to my colleagues.

It is one shared by the American people. If you mess with my family's financial security, you better watch out.

The Senate's failure to patch the AMT in a timely fashion is going to delay millions of tax refunds, and we should not be surprised when the American people--like Clark Griswold--go nuts.

Right now, Americans are likely making decisions about the Christmas

gifts they are going to buy, at least partially, based on their tax refund.

They assume they are getting that tax refund.

And they assume they are getting it on time.

Further delay is no longer acceptable.

Yesterday on the floor, Republicans were blamed for holding up passage of an AMT patch.

That is funny.

When Republicans were in the majority, we managed to pass an AMT patch early in the year, no later than May 11.

We did it without permanent tax hikes to pay for 1-year AMT fixes.

We did it without including special interest giveaways, and we did it without delaying tax refunds.

Democrats did tell us yesterday on the floor that they are the party of change.

On the AMT at least, they seem to be succeeding.

To fix the AMT they propose raising taxes.

To pass important tax extenders they are raising taxes.

And their efforts have now jeopardized the tax filing season and refunds for the hard working Americans who depend on them.

When times change, they sure do change.

We are about to have a vote on the AMT.

I support AMT relief. I support AMT repeal.

But I will not support this fake tax relief.

I am not the only one. The Democrats' plan to fix the AMT with permanent tax increases ought to fail.

And for good reason.

We should not be paying for temporary tax cuts with permanent tax increases, nor should we be putting the economy at risk by passing unnecessary tax hikes.

When this episode is over, we need to get down to the real business of fixing this AMT so we can get Americans the tax refunds they expect and the tax relief they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of a friend of mine, Mr. George Osmond, who, on Thursday, November 6, passed away. While most people will likely remember George as the patriarch of one of our Nation's most famous entertainment families, he should also be remembered as a great humanitarian and entrepreneur.

George was born in 1917 in Star Valley, WY. As a young man, in 1941, he enlisted in the Army and served honorably during World War II. In 1944, he was stationed at the U.S. Army's General Depot in Ogden, UT, where he met his wife, Olive May Davis. George and Olive were married in December 1944 and had nine children, eight boys and one girl.

To most, George's early professional life was quite normal. He began his career selling real estate and life insurance. He later took a position as the Ogden Postmaster. During that time, his sons began to study music; George taught them to sing barbershop and helped them get invitations to perform at community events. His family first entered the national spotlight when four of his sons, Alan, Wayne, Merrill and Jay, formed a quartet known as ``the Osmond Brothers'' and began performing at Disneyland and on The Andy Williams Show.

Over the years, seven of his nine children would perform a variety of music styles all over the world. All counted, the Osmond family has recorded 142 albums, selling 100 million copies with 51 gold and platinum recordings. George, himself, worked as the manager of his children's music careers, working to make sure they remained grounded and focused on the importance of family.

One of the lesser known facts about the Osmond family is that two of the Osmond children, the oldest sons Virl and Tom, were born deaf. While these two sons were never music performers, they were closely involved with their father's charitable efforts, working with him to establish The Osmond Foundation, which later became the Children's Miracle Network.

The Children's Miracle Network is now headquartered in Salt Lake City and has, to date, raised more $3 billion, which is distributed directly to a network of 170 hospitals. These funds are raised specifically for children's hospitals, medical research and community awareness of children's health issues. It is the largest organization of its kind in the world and is, in addition to their many children and grandchildren, George and Olive Osmond's greatest legacy.

Mr. President, I knew George Osmond for many years. He was, above all else, devoted to his family and a man of integrity. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunities I have had over the years to work with him and his family on several charitable endeavors. George was truly a remarkable man who leaves a long legacy here with us in his passing. I want to express my deepest condolences to George's family and thank them for their wonderful example of service.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement, FTA. As my colleagues are aware, I am a strong proponent of free trade, having voted for every trade agreement that has been negotiated during my 31 years in this body.

Despite that fact, I have concerns over some recent changes to the Peruvian agreement and, more specifically, the deal that was struck between the administration and the congressional Democrats on May 10. Specifically, the changes to the intellectual property rights, IPR, and labor chapters of this agreement will, I believe, become more relevant when we as a nation begin to negotiate future free-trade agreements with deserving nations.

It is my sincere hope that I am wrong and that we will not in the near future face serious challenges to our national labor laws as a result of this agreement. Unfortunately, we will not have to wait, however, to realize the devastating effects that the new trade deal will have on our IPR concerns.

The labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement could put U.S. Federal and State labor laws at significant risk. Several provisions of the labor chapter of the U.S.-Peru trade agreement create an unacceptable risk that the United States will be required to change important provisions of U.S. Federal and state labor law or be subject to trade sanctions. Given that the purpose of the May 10 agreement was to ensure that Peru adopted strong labor provisions, not the United States, Congress's implementation of this agreement should provide an explicit safe harbor for U.S. labor law.

Peru FTA requirement to adopt ``fundamental labor rights'' puts right-to-work, freedom of association and other major U.S. labor provisions at significant risk. Article 17.2 of the Peru FTA requires both Peru and the United States to ``adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices there under, the following rights as stated in the International Labor Organization ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up (1998) (ILO Declaration) where it affects trade between the

countries. These rights are freedom of association, recognition of collective bargaining, elimination of forced/compulsory labor, effective abolition of child labor, prohibition of worst forms of child labor, and elimination of employment discrimination.

The Peru FTA does not provide any definition of these fundamental rights, leaving the interpretation of what constitutes ``freedom of association'' or ``collective bargaining'' to a dispute settlement panel appointed by the U.S. and Peruvian Governments.

Given the agreement's reference to the ILO declaration, it is widely expected that such a dispute settlement panel would in fact look at and rely at least partially on the standards of the relevant ILO core conventions associated with these rights, much as the ILO does each year in its followup reports required by the ILO declaration. The recent push by House Democrats to have Peru enact very detailed changes to its treatment of--contract laborers as part of its implementation of the agreement an issue not specifically addressed in the Peru FTA-- confirms the wide range of issues subject to this chapter.

The United States, which has only ratified two of the eight ILO core conventions, faces substantial risk that a panel will find that U.S. labor law violates the Peru FTA, requiring the U.S. to change its law or face trade sanctions. Key U.S. laws subject to that risk include:

State right-to-work rules, which standard labor market analysis and several other countries, such as Canada, find imposes an improper restraint on the ability of workers to bargain collectively or to strike, as nonunion workers have the authority to vote on whether to strike;

U.S. prohibitions on the admission to unions of persons connected with the Communist Party or the Klu Klux Klan given that ILO standards require the admission of all applicants;

U.S. prohibitions in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, on the inclusion of supervisors in union, which is required by ILO conventions;

Exclusive bargaining rights provided under the NLRA, which are in conflict with ILO standards requiring minority unions be allowed to function;

Various Federal and State laws that place reasonable and balanced limits on the right to strike, which are in conflict with the ILO conventions' prohibition on virtually all restrictions on the right to strike;

U.S. laws permitting the permanent replacement of striking workers, which the ILO has indicated may pose a risk to the effective enforcement of the right of collective bargaining when it occurs on an extensive basis;

Fair Labor Standards Act minimum age of 14 and state laws where there are no minimum ages for children working in agriculture contravenes the ILO minimum age convention; and

Lack of equal remuneration or comparable worth rules.

The Peru FTA is likely to require State labor law changes as well. By requiring the adoption of these rights at the Federal level, the Peru FTA in combination with the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Article VI, section 2, is also expected to require any changes made at the Federal level to preempt conflicting State law. As a result, State right-to-work rules or lower minimum age standards would face significant risk of being overturned by dispute settlement panels.

The Peru FTA requires parties to promote migrant worker rights. Annex 17.6 requires the United States and Peru to engage in a wide range of capacity building work. While much of it could be useful, its obligation to promote migrant rights, without regard to the legal status of a migrant, creates a troubling requirement that the United States would be promoting rights for illegal immigrants at odds with Congress's direction. For years, I have been a steadfast supporter of fair intellectual property laws that are appropriately enforced. The Constitution itself provides for the creation of intellectual property, and it has been the process used by brilliant U.S. innovators to develop, market, and sale groundbreaking new products for years. In the sea of red trade deficits we have faced for so many years now, IP and the innovative U.S. products that use its protection have been one of the few areas where the U.S. has a trade surplus.

Traditionally, trade agreements have strengthened American innovation abroad. However, with the newly renegotiated text found within the U.S.-Peru FTA's IPR chapter, we see that we have walked back from the rigorous IPR protections found in previous agreements in favor of weakened provisions. These changes mainly affect one of America's most productive industries, that of pharmaceuticals.

The U.S.-Peru FTA weakens IP protection in three ways:

First, the agreement does away with patent linkage. Linkage requires a country, before it approves a generic medicine for sale, to ensure that the brand-name medicine is no longer under patent. Without linkage, governments can help facilitate patent infringement. Linkage doesn't hinder access to medicines, and it is not about compulsory licensing. It is about protection of basic patent rights. The proposed changes replace this simple enforcement procedure with a complex one. I don't see what that accomplishes.

Second, the changes shorten the period of data exclusivity for innovative medicines, authorizing a shorter period than we require here in the United States. This change is not only unfair to U.S. innovators but devalues the incentive for launching new drugs in developing countries. Here is why. In developing countries, it is often difficult to enforce patent rights. But data protection is effective and relatively easy to administer. It often provides the only real protection biopharmaceutical companies have when they invest significant resources to launch new products. You take away the protection and you take away the incentive to launch. It is hard enough to get companies to launch medicines quickly in these countries because the markets are so small. If you shrink data protection, you effectively shrink the market even further.

Finally, the new template no longer requires countries to add time to patent terms for pharmaceuticals to make up for undue delays in marketing approval or patent grant. We require patent restoration here in the United States, so why not abroad? Because, critics argue, patent terms are long enough as they are. But without patent term restoration, we actually go the other direction. Without patent term restoration, the effective patent term could actually shrink significantly.

From what I understand, the Democrats insisted on the changes to the IPR chapter in order to grant greater access to medicines for developing nations. What is ironic to me is that these changes will do just the opposite.

All of these changes were ostensibly part of an effort to promote access to medicines to poor people. A noble goal. But what is so absurd about this is that the changes may actually have the opposite effect and harm U.S. competitiveness in the process.

Why would we backtrack on IPR? Some may say that we are rich enough so that we can afford to give away the fruits of our ingenuity. But that is like saying we are rich enough to voluntarily close down our factories so that our competitors can have a chance. We don't have that luxury.

Some say backtracking on IPR is necessary to help the poor and sick. That, too, is wrong. IPR is all about incentives. If you protect IPR, then people will have a stronger incentive to develop new and innovative products and bring them to market faster. If you don't protect IPR, then those incentives are greatly diminished. Here is what we might expect with weak IPR protection:

There would be less incentive to launch products early in developing countries. Innovative companies would have less reason to show up when their technology could immediately be copied and sold by others who made no contribution to the R&D.

If there were fewer brand-name launches, there would be fewer generics. As brand-name medicines go off patent, generic medicine companies can rely on the safety approvals and market secured by the research-based companies, making more generics available to more people. Without the brand-name company securing the safety approvals and creating the market, fewer generics can enter the marketplace, and fewer people will get the medicines they need.

As a result, the poor would not have access to the newest and most effective medicines.

It is easy and convenient to use IPR as a scapegoat for poor health care systems. The reality is that access to medicines is helped, not hindered, by strong IPR protections. Problems in access to medicines are most often due to other factors, such as poor infrastructure, taxes, tariffs, an ineffective health care system, and different government funding priorities. By pointing at IPR, we divert attention from these much more critical problems. In sum, the changes we have foisted upon Peru are harmful not only to U.S. interests, but also to the very interests they purport to serve.

I applaud the USTR and her staff on their hard work in negotiating this agreement, especially in the area of intellectual property rights. However, I know there are several Senators in this body who represent States that contain numerous innovative companies that benefit from strong intellectual property laws and enforcement. While the overall agreement strengthens American IPR, it does so in a way that is not as vigorous as agreements in the past.

Millions of jobs across the country depend on these laws.

I know firsthand that many countries around the world would like nothing more than to see the U.S. intellectual property laws and enforcement diminished. Why? Because they want to exploit us.

They want to be able to steal our inventions.

They want to be able to ripoff our best and brightest ideas. They want our taxpayers to fund billions of dollars of extremely important research and then take it from us for free.

I have been assured by the administration that the issues that I have raised today will never become a problem for the United States. While I am confident that my concerns remain valid, I am unwilling to stand in the way of the President's trade agenda. The Peruvian trade agreement will provide needed trade benefits to many Utah businesses that exported $7.7 million worth of goods in 2006, not to mention the overall benefit of the agreement to the U.S. economy as a whole.

Therefore, I will reluctantly vote for the U.S.-Peru FTA before us today. However, I will not give up on improving future trade agreements in the critical areas of labor and intellectual property rights.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pending crisis of the American taxpayer. The cause of this crisis is the failure of Congress to deal honestly with the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.

Debate over what to do about the AMT has become a yearly ritual on Capitol Hill. As a member of the Finance Committee, I fully understand this ritual. But this year, we are dragging our feet, and the more we delay, the more likely it is that millions of Americans will get socked with an unexpected tax bill next year and millions more will have their refunds delayed.

Now it appears we are not going to address the AMT until December. Failure to address the AMT promptly on our return will be a pretty terrible Christmas surprise for the families impacted by congressional ineptitude, but it will certainly be a surprise they will never forget. I can see it now: Surprise, you need to write a check for $3,000 to the IRS by April 15. That is right up there with: Surprise, you have been served. Yet Congress delays. Congress fiddles. This is grossly irresponsible.

According to Secretary Paulson and the Department of the Treasury, unless we fix the AMT, 25 million taxpayers will be subject to it in 2007. That is 21 million more than in 2006. And 25 million other taxpayers will face delays in the processing of their returns and receiving of refunds. In my home State of Utah, the Joint Tax Committee estimates we will jump from 19,000 AMT filers to 150,000 AMT filers. This is simply unacceptable.

Most of the taxpayers who are at risk have not planned for the eventuality of AMT liability. After all, year after year, like clockwork, the Republicans controlled Congress and they passed AMT relief. We are already too late to avoid some problems. The IRS warned Congress that unless we fixed the AMT by early November, there would be serious delays in the processing of tax returns. We are now pushing toward Thanksgiving. Secretary Paulson has made clear that based on historical filing patterns, enactment of an AMT fix in mid to late December could delay issuance of approximately $75 billion in refunds-- that is with a ``b,'' a billion dollars, 75 of them. That is 25 million tax refunds delayed.

It is always a bad idea for Members of Congress to get between their constituents and their tax refunds. Yet here we are. How did we come to this particular pass? The story of the AMT should be a case study for limited Government. Give Congress long enough, and it will find a way to mess things up.

In 1969, the press reported that 155 high-income Americans paid no Federal income taxes in 1966. That was found out in 1969. Congress came to the rescue, creating an alternative minimum tax that would make sure all Americans paid their fair share. The AMT would prevent tax avoidance by disallowing certain credits and deductions. As if it is not bad enough figuring out one tax system, now many Americans would have to complete their tax a second way--once under the traditional income tax and once under the alternative minimum tax. And naturally the tax that gets paid is the one which is highest.

Still, this AMT was originally meant to apply to a small number of filers--155. That is 155 out of almost 300 million people. Today, it is a menace threatening millions of Americans. Absent changes, estimates show that by 2010, nearly 89 percent of all married couples, with two children, earning between $75,000 and $100,000 will be hit by the AMT. Make no mistake about it, elected officials are responsible for that train wreck--and, I might say, on both sides of the aisle.

In 1986, Congress failed to index the AMT exemption for inflation.

In 1993, a Democratic Congress and President Clinton took us a bit further down the road toward this fiscal debacle. They raised the 24- percent rate on the first $175,000 of the alternative minimum tax. They raised that taxable income to 26 percent. The rate on income in excess of $175,000 was raised to 28 percent.

Republicans in Congress attempted to right the ship. In 1999, we passed a provision repealing the AMT in its entirety. Done. Finito. Vaya con dios, AMT. Had President Clinton signed this bill, we would not be having this debate today. Millions of Americans would not be staring down the barrel of an unfair and unplanned-for tax hike. But we all know how this story ended. President Clinton vetoed the bill. This was the coup de grace. And so the AMT would continue to haunt us, growing bigger and more destructive every year since then.

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 only further emphasized the insidiousness of the AMT. These tax cuts promised tax relief to middle- class families and economic growth. Yet, as the economy grew and income rose, more and more middle-class families fell into the AMT trap. Economic growth, income growth, tax cuts, and a failure to index the AMT for inflation created one costly cocktail for millions of families.

So there you have it. Congress manages to take a tax designed to target a handful of super-rich tax avoiders--155 people--and 40 years later, millions of middle-class families are being hit by that tax.

For what it is worth, this experience should give pause to any American who wants to hand management of the Nation's health care system over to the good people on Capitol Hill--us good people on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, since 2001, Congress has patched the AMT. In layman's terms, on a yearly basis we have increased the AMT exemption. The result is that fewer Americans have an AMT liability greater than their liability under the ordinary income tax. These patches have done the trick. They have prevented the AMT from hitting even more families. Republicans dutifully passed that patch as sure as the sun rising in the morning.

Now, don't get me wrong, a yearly patch is no substitute for what we tried

to do during the Clinton years, and that was to completely repeal the AMT, which I have been advocating for many years. Only complete repeal will remove the uncertainty faced by millions of Americans with potential AMT liability. And as is on full display this year, that uncertainty is growing.

The problem now is the insistence by my colleagues on the other side that we follow the so-called pay-go rules. Under a Democratic Congress, any tax cuts must be paid for. Now, let me translate that for you. This Democratic Congress is going to raise your taxes, and to pay for the AMT, a Democratic Congress is going to have to raise a lot of your taxes. Under pay-go rules, if Congress passes a provision that reduces revenues to the Treasury, it must make up the balance from somewhere else. This is true even if the provision does not cut taxes but merely prevents a tax increase from hitting middle-class American families.

The Democratic Congress is proud of these rules. These rules supposedly demonstrate a commitment to fiscal responsibility. But, as some wags have suggested, the Democrats misnamed their rule. It should be more accurately called tax-go, not what it has been--pay-go. You see, in the hands of a Democratic Congress, the way to balance the books after a tax cut is never to cut spending; it is always to raise taxes. You have to love the logic. We are going to cut taxes by raising taxes. This is a public policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it. This is what Congressman Tim Mahoney, a Florida Democrat, had to say:

You want to reward people for taking risks. How about

budget cuts to make government more efficient? We need to

show people we are good managers and stewards of their money.

I've been here 10 months and I haven't seen one proposal to

cut spending.

Now, I think that about hits the mark, and that is a Democrat speaking about Democrat rule in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Now, for the Democrats--most of them--fiscal responsibility means one thing: raising your taxes. They have a one-page playbook, and with the AMT fix passed by the House last week, they ran that play right down the throats of the American people. Touchdown, Democrats. Unfortunately, the American people are the big losers here. A 1-year patch for the alternative minimum tax costs $50 billion. For 2 years, we will need to come up with $135 billion. Permanent repeal of the alternative minimum tax will now cost us $872 billion.

Oh, if we had just had President Clinton sign into law the repeal of AMT that we passed through both Houses of Congress back then. But let's just start with the 1-year patch.

In order to pay for this $50 billion 1-year patch--or a tax increase, in other words--the House had to come up with $50 billion in tax increases. One of the most talked about tax hikes in that bill involves treating carried-interest income, currently taxed as capital gains, as ordinary income. This is an old-school soak-the-rich play, honed before the adoption of the forward pass. I think for this one the Democrats pulled out FDR's playbook. Go after private equity managers, raise taxes on the 50,000 people nationwide earning carried interest, and keep taxes level for the 23 million people whose financial security is jeopardized by AMT. Never mind the fact that this could create perverse disincentives for one of the engines of our current economic growth. Never mind that it would reduce risk-taking in venture capital firms and real estate partnerships and other entities that create jobs and economic growth. Never mind the fact we are paying for a 1-year AMT tax by permanently raising taxes--your taxes. No, what is really pathetic about this proposal is that the Democrats who support this want to permanently raise taxes to pay for revenue we never thought we would have in the first place. People, this is phantom revenue. We were never going to collect this money. We never wanted to collect this money. But with a twisted sense of fiscal responsibility, we are now going down the road of permanently increasing taxes to make 1-year offsets on money we never thought we would have. And that is because we are unwilling to cut spending in this Congress today. Now, this is some seriously warped tax policy.

The House majority leader sees these misguided tax hikes as a model of virtuous statesmanship--``Raising revenues takes political courage.'' If that is true, then the House Democrats are the Spartans of tax hikes. In the end, I doubt we will raise taxes to pay for AMT relief. I certainly hope we will not do that.

I understand why the Democrats feel the need to blame someone else for this problem. While Americans everywhere could be hit by the AMT, it really is the high-tech States--represented primarily by Democrats-- that will suffer the most if Congress fails to act. All States will suffer, but the ones that will suffer the most are the blue States. Taxpayers in California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York filed 44.2 percent of all AMT returns last year, and I think that figures in it a lot.

This disparity is only growing. If Congress does not fix this problem, in States such as Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey, nearly 25 percent of current filers will be forced into paying the alternative minimum tax. Absent alternative minimum tax relief, New York would have 1 million additional AMT tax filers this year compared to last year--1 million more. In California, the number of new AMT filers would increase by 1.7 million.

I don't mind these Robin Hood-like approaches to blue States, if that is what they want to do by electing people who do this to them. I think they have a right to do that. But I will bet money that they do not want that type of thing to happen to them.

These individuals and families, who are going to now be sucked into the AMT tax, never thought they would be subjected to the AMT and so they did not withhold accordingly. The worst case scenario, then, is that they will actually have to cut checks for thousands of dollars come April.

Let's not forget the 25 million lower income taxpayers who are facing long delays in getting their refunds because of the slowness of the Congress and the inability of Congress to get this done. This would be devastating, it will be devastating, unless we can change this. Yet we continue to dither. The answer is easy: Repeal it, just do it, get rid of it already. But Democrats do not seem to be inclined to do the sensible thing. They want to let the AMT linger and fester.

Year after year, repeal will become even more expensive and the Democrats, armed with their pay-go rules, will have to find a way to balance the books when they do repeal it.

What do they propose? How will they offset the nearly $1 trillion that AMT repeal or reform will cost? If you look closely enough, you can just make it out on the horizon--the mother lode, the mother ship, the mother of all tax reforms, according to my dear friend over in the House, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We are close friends but, boy, he called it right, the mother of all tax reforms.

AMT relief is at the center of the central Democratic proposal for tax reform. While this tax reform is going nowhere right now, make no mistake about it, this is what we have to look forward to, from a Democratic Congress and White House.

My friend from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has a way of getting what he wants. He is smart--I think he is brilliant, personally--he is persistent, and he knows how to cut a deal. I know. I have worked with him on a number of things. I have great admiration for him. And this mother of all tax reforms is his baby. But as much as I love my friend Congressman Rangel, this is one ugly mother.

This mother is not friendly or funny like Lucille Ball. She is a bit creepy, as a matter of fact, as you can see. Actually, she is a bit scary. That is frightening. At times, she is downright unstable. This may be hard to see on the television cameras here, but she looks pretty unstable to me. And she is coming to get the middle class.

This mother promises to get rid of the onerous AMT. By repealing AMT, mother claims she will provide tax relief to millions of middle-class families. But mother is really only out for mother. Of course, that relief is not real relief, since we never intended those families to pay the AMT in the first place. Calling this tax relief is

like someone getting ready to hit you in the head with a hammer, deciding not to hit you, and then telling you that he is doing you a favor.

What she gives with one hand, this mother takes away with the other, by assuming the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, so essential to our economic growth, will expire.

The mother ship already comes fully loaded with the largest tax increase in history. Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire would dwarf even that.

This is not a recipe for happy taxpayers, this is bitter and unnecessary medicine. The majority of Democrats in the Congress seem prepared to make the American taxpayer take the dose. You can see, it is not very tasty.

We do not need to go down this track. To borrow from an old movie, we should ``Throw Momma''--this mama--``From The Train.'' It would be a real mistake to continue the practice of paying for fake, temporary tax cuts with real and permanent tax hikes.

Contrary to the assertions of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the only responsible and the only realistic action we can take is to repeal the AMT in its entirety right now. We should do so without raising taxes.

We are going to have a debate in the next few years over fundamental tax reform and we are going to have debates over fundamental health care reform. We should do so without the specter of the AMT hanging over this Chamber.

I urge my colleagues to repeal it in its entirety, right now, without raising taxes. You cannot be fiscally responsible without being fiscally honest. This phantom income should play no part in broader debates over tax reform. At the very least, we should not pass permanent tax hikes that would have ugly economic ramifications in order to pay for 1 year of AMT relief. We are putting off disaster 1 more year by doing that, at a cost of $50 billion in tax increases.

There are some ways we can do this. There are no good ways we can do this. But I know one thing, the worst way is to do it by increasing taxes to pay for it, and stifling the economy that has enough on its plate with the high cost of energy, to mention one item.

To go to approximately 24 million people from 155 people is more than absurd. That is where we are going. If we take this mother of all tax reforms seriously, and if we were able to pass that--and I hope we are not--I have to say there is going to be a great increase in taxes, a great stifling of the economy, and much more difficulty for this country in the coming years.

One reason I am giving these remarks is I know there are people on the Democratic side who do not like this, who are responsible and who do want to do what is right, who basically know there are no good options here. Raising taxes is one of the worst options we can do. I appeal to them to stand up now and not let this happen because if it does, this economy is going to pay a tremendous price. I think in the end, as bad as it will be no matter what we do, there are better ways of doing this than increasing taxes, doing it the way that has been suggested.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senators Rockefeller, Lott, and Kennedy to introduce the Medicare Quality Improvement Modernization Act of 2007, S. 2396.

As background for my colleagues, Medicare's Quality Improvement Organization, QIO, program has been in existence for 35 years. The program's intent has always been to assure that Medicare's beneficiaries receive high quality medical care. The program has undergone a steady evolution. What began as a program that called attention to hospitals and physicians whose care deviated from the norms of medical practice has morphed into one that seeks to help physicians, hospitals, nursing homes and other providers develop systems to improve their quality of care.

The program has changed as the definition of quality changed. When Medicare's peer review program was initiated, high quality care for a Medicare beneficiary was simply not to be among the unfortunate few whose medical care deviated from the norms of local medical practice. Fortunate for them, however, quality today is the routine adherence of providers to nationally accepted standards of care.

The legislative changes we propose for the QIO program reflects an ever-advancing definition of quality medical care and a focus on helping providers obtain it.

The QIO program has three functions. First, the program reviews the medical care of beneficiaries who have complaints about their care and provides the beneficiaries opinions. Second, the program supports intensive work with practitioners, nursing homes, managed care plans and hospitals to develop delivery systems that improve the quality of their care. Third the program publicly reports system-level performance measures.

The bill I introduce today is faithful to the results of a congressionally-mandated review of the QIO program reported in February, 2006. In that review, the IOM concluded ``The QIO program provides a potentially valuable nationwide infrastructure dedicated to promoting quality health care.'' For example, the QIO program is responsible for a substantial part of the National Healthcare Quality Report published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The IOM report called for changes in the QIO program. Its principal findings and recommendations were that the local QIO boards are heavily physician-dominated with little consumer representation. Existing legislation requires specific levels of physician involvement, an outmoded board structure.

Also, the QIO functions should be harmonized with other federal quality Initiatives.

It found that the QIOs were ``. . . restricted from contracting with health care providers in its state for technical assistance or review services similar to those covered by its core Medicare contract.'' The IOM committee concluded that QIOs would be able to serve more providers and expand their function beyond Medicare beneficiaries to the entire healthcare system if they could contract for services to supplement their CMS funds.

The Committee also recommended removal of restrictions on public access to the QIO's findings. For instance, beneficiaries have been unable to review the results of investigations that they requested.

The IOM recommended that beneficiary reviews be removed from the local QIOs.

The IOM committee concluded that Congress and the secretary of DHHS and CMS should improve program management by enhancing the contracting process and improving communication with the QIOs.

The legislation I propose seeks to strengthen the QIO's infrastructure to fit with an ever-tightening standard of quality in medicine, believing that doctors and hospitals want to do the right thing but also that patients should have their say.

Many of the changes recommended by the Institute of Medicine's experts and accepted by the experts at CMS do not require statutory change, but some do. Some program modifications are sufficiently critical to Medicare's beneficiaries, that while statutory language may not be required to affect them, a Congressional mandate is needed to assure them.

First, the Quality Improvement Organization Modernization Act of 2007 specifies that the Quality Improvement Organizations offer education, instruction, and technical assistance to providers, practitioners, and Medicare Advantage plans. It incorporates plans and providers in urban, rural, and frontier areas and providers that treat racial and ethnic minorities.

Second, our bill strengthens the review process for individual Medicare beneficiaries. The QIOs must actively educate beneficiaries of their right to bring any concerns to the QIOs. The QIOs must work with providers who are reviewed to correct deficiencies where they exist and to improve communication with patients where they do not.

The bill specifies that the findings of the review must be disclosed to the beneficiary requesting the review but not before giving the provider an opportunity to respond to the findings. The review functions are left with the local QIOs and not delegated to other entities to perform.

The bill specifies that the findings of reviews may not be used in medical malpractice litigation, otherwise the QIOs would serve more to screen cases for litigation than they would to improve the quality of care.

Third, in order to be certain that the QIOs are appropriately judging the severity of the errors they find and appropriately recommending sanctions to the Secretary, the Office of Inspector General will contract for an audit of 10 percent of one year's QIO reviews during each 5-year contract period.

Fourth, program administration is strengthened and its goals focused. The program's scope of work must incorporate the priorities of local stakeholders.

A strategic advisory committee will advise the Secretary on program goals, on program performance, and on harmonization of the QIO's quality functions with other federal and non-federal quality initiatives.

The GAO is instructed to report on implementation of program changes 1 year after the first 5-year contract period following enactment of this legislation. The adequacy of funding allocated to the QIOs for local initiatives has been in dispute among the QIOs. Congress is to receive an independent report about the adequacy of QIO financing before the initiation of each contract period.

The contracting process is strengthened by mandating timely contracting with the QIOs by CMS and by lengthening the contract period from 3 to 5 years. All QIOs must bid competitively every 5 years.

Fifth, local boards have been physician-dominated with little consumer representation. Our bill eliminates the requirement that QIOs must be physician sponsored organizations. Our bill improves local QIO accountability by strengthening the authority of the Secretary over board structure and function. It authorizes the Secretary to ensure that non-physician quality experts and qualified consumers are given appropriate representation on state QIO boards. It authorizes the Secretary to ensure that the board structure is appropriate, that the compensation of board members and executives is market-based and that conflict of interest among board members is mitigated.

Sixth, as the QIOs focus more of their energies on working with providers to improve quality the demand for their services in this endeavor exceed their resources. For example, the number of doctors requesting help from the Utah QIO in selecting information technology for their offices far exceeds the resources available to it from its CMS contract.

Our bill allows a QIO to contract with a provider or organization if it meets one of several requirements. Among them are that the QIO must receive no more than 5 percent of its revenue from a single provider or organization, or if the contracting organization is subject to review by the QIO, conflict of interest must be mitigated by using an out-of- state QIO to perform the reviews that the local QIO would otherwise perform.

The QIO program differs from other Federal health care quality programs in that it does not just measure quality; it works with providers to attain it. The Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Act of 2007 strengthens the rights of beneficiaries, strengthens the administration of the program and the contracting process, provides for more accountability of contractors, and focuses the program on creating quality systems.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in strengthening the QIO program. It is one of the cornerstones of the quality initiative not just for Medicare but for all Americans.

Mr. President, following the unauthorized public disclosure in 2005 of what has become known as the Terrorism Surveillance Program, numerous lawsuits were filed against electronic communication service providers for their alleged participation. Currently, more than 40 lawsuits are pending, which collectively seek hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. Let me repeat that figure, hundreds of billions of dollars.

For myriad reasons which I am going to discuss, these service providers alleged to have participated deserve a round of applause and a helping hand, not a slap in the face and a kick to the gut.

The amount of misinformation concerning this issue is staggering. Given that this dialogue involves highly classified details, there are many things that simply can't be discussed. However, the committee report for the recently passed FISA modernization bill, S. 2248, from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is public, and contains very pertinent information.

The report mentions that as with other intelligence matters, the identities of persons or entities that provide assistance to the U.S. Government are protected as vital sources and methods of intelligence. Details of any such assistance can not be discussed. However, the committee report does mention that beginning soon after September 11, the executive branch provided written requests or directives to U.S. electronic communication service providers to obtain their assistance with communications intelligence activities that had been authorized by the President.

During consideration of FISA modernization legislation, the Intelligence Committee examined classified documents relating to this issue.

The committee, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan tally, voted to include retroactive immunity for service providers that were alleged to have cooperated with the intelligence community in the implementation of the President's surveillance program. Senators from both sides of the aisle, after careful consideration, came to this conclusion. Make no mistake, this was the right conclusion.

It was the right conclusion for the Intelligence Committee, and it should be the right conclusion for the Judiciary Committee, when it considers this bill tomorrow.

Given the astounding amount of misinformation in the public domain concerning the Terrorism Surveillance Program, it is not surprising that these lawsuits are filled with false information and baseless allegations.

Some have asked a valid question, if the companies did not break the law, why do they need immunity? Quite simply, the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege prevents these companies from defending themselves.

This assertion by the Government is absolutely essential, as the possible disclosure of classified materials from ongoing court proceedings is a grave threat to national security. Given the necessity for the state secrets privilege, the drawback is that the companies being sued are forbidden from making their case.

In fact, the companies cannot even confirm or deny any involvement in the program whatsoever. They have no ability to defend themselves.

Ordinarily, these companies would be able to address allegations and make their case. However, the classified nature of the topic means that companies are not free to do so. They can't even have discussions with shareholders or business partners. But we need to remember, lawful silence does not equate to guilt.

Another point not mentioned nearly enough is that the Government cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without the assistance of telecommunication companies. This means that our collection capabilities are dependent on the support and collaboration of private businesses.

If retroactive immunity is not provided, these private businesses will certainly be extremely hesitant to provide any future assistance to our intelligence community. This could have a crippling effect on the security of millions of people in our society; thus, it's simply an unacceptable outcome for the safety and security of our Nation.

Any hesitation from companies to provide assistance with future Government requests could be disastrous. This could affect not only our intelligence community but domestic law enforcement efforts. The next time a child is kidnapped, and law enforcement needs help with communications, would that situation allow any hesitation from the service provider? If your son or daughter was missing, would you stand for any lack of cooperation from companies? Do we want endless teams of private company lawyers second, third, fourth, and fifth guessing lawful orders to compel their assistance?

This is not the only problem with not including retroactive immunity. As the duration of these lawsuits increases, so does the chance that highly classified sources and methods of our intelligence community will be unnecessarily and unlawfully disclosed. Our enemies are acutely aware of these proceedings, and are certainly attempting to gather information previously unknown to them. The potential disclosure of classified information also puts the personnel and facilities of electronic communication service providers at risk.

Given all of the tremendous harm and damage that will occur by not passing a form of limited liability, I am amazed at the number of individuals who fail to grasp the seriousness of the issue before us.

To those who purport to oppose immunity in any form, I would hope that they take the time to actually read the bill. For those unable to tear themselves away from their favorite partisan blog, I am going to quickly tell you what the immunity provision says, and what it does not say. Remember, this bill passed 13-2 in the Intelligence Committee.

A civil action may be dismissed only if a certification is made to the court certifying that either (1) the electronic service provider did not provide the alleged assistance, or (2) the assistance was provided after the 9/11 attacks, and was described in a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

Furthermore, this certification has to be reviewed by the court before a civil action can be dismissed.

It does not provide for immunity for Government officials. It does not provide for immunity for criminal acts. Instead, it is a narrowly tailored provision that strikes a proper balance. This point can't be overlooked; the immunity provision in the current bill has absolutely zero effect on the numerous lawsuits pending against Federal Government agencies. These cases will go on, with their questionable constitutional challenges, with no impact from this bill.

Some Senators have suggested that indemnification or substitution would be possible solutions. Let me be perfectly clear, neither one is appropriate or acceptable in this situation. The Intelligence Committee considered both of these ideas, and rejected them for good reason. Indemnification, where the Federal Government would be responsible for any damages awarded against the providers, is not advisable since the providers would still be parties to the lawsuits, and thus the suits would continue with the consequences of disclosure and discovery. Not only does this further the likelihood of disclosure of classified material, but the companies will face serious damage to their business reputations, relationships with foreign countries, and stock prices. This is extremely unfair, if handled improperly.

Substitution, where the Government would litigate in place of the service providers, is not a viable solution since all of the same concerns just mentioned still apply. Even though the providers will not be parties to the litigation, discovery will still apply.

Don't we realize that having the Government fund unnecessary litigation is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars? The Government does not magically create dollars, it taxes hard-working Americans. When it comes to funding, who do we think the Government is?

To say that the Government should pay is to say that our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters should have money forcefully taken from their paychecks to fund frivolous lawsuits. This is Alice in Wonderland, and down the rabbit hole we go.

Finally, for those who love to expound the catch phrase ``warrantless wiretapping'' to assert some theory of illegality, I encourage you to carefully read the fourth amendment.

Contrary to any other assertion, the fourth amendment does not always require a warrant and is based on the reasonableness of searches. While the phrase is meant to scare people, ``warrantless wiretapping'' in this instance is perfectly legal and constitutional.

Immunity is an appropriate remedy. It is just. It is necessary. It is imperative for the continued success of our intelligence gathering.

While reasonable minds can disagree about political topics, this issue requires disciplined logic, not political hyperbole. I hope that people keep the following facts in mind when considering this topic.

The program did not involve interception of domestic to domestic phone calls.

The President and the highest levels of the executive branch determined the program to be lawful and conveyed this fact repeatedly in writing to service providers.

The electronic service providers' participation was vital to the security of our country.

Lives have been saved by this program.

The companies were called on to support a lawful program that was vital to the security of our country. Do the companies require thanks or appreciation? No, but they certainly do not deserve illegitimate and false criticisms that affect their financial well being.

A grateful public should certainly appreciate the critical assistance the companies alone can provide for the public's defense. These companies are quite possibly facing irreversible harm to their business reputation and cannot defend themselves due to state secrets.

This debate has far too many Monday morning quarterbacks, applying their revisionist history to best represent their political mantra. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the limited immunity provided for in S. 2248. Any company that has done its part to provide for the protection of American families deserves protection in return. If not, the next time we reach out for a helping hand, we will be the ones who receive a slap to the face. And really, who could blame them?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we approved the Conference Report on the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007--H.R. 1429. I applaud the good work of all involved. I particularly want to commend Chairman Kennedy and Senator Enzi, as well as Chairman Miller and Representative McKeon on the House side for their collective work on this important bill.

Head Start is a national program promoting school readiness through educational, health, nutritional, and social services. Currently, Head Start serves over 900,000 low-income children and their families in approximately 1,600 programs run by public and private agencies. As a whole-child, whole-family program, Head Start prepares children for what we hope will be a lifetime of learning.

I want to recognize and commend our Head Start programs in Utah. They do an outstanding job, and I believe this legislation will go a long way to providing additional support for them. I have appreciated their input during this long process.

I have been struck by some of the stories shared by our Head Start people in Utah. I remember hearing from one of our Head Start Directors that a number of children have never held a book before entering the program. When they are handed their first book, many don't know how to open it. Entering Head Start swings wide the doors of learning and opportunity and exposes young children to the reading and learning process.

I have also heard stories of Head Start children who were suffering from major medical problems that would not only threaten their ability to learn but their very lives. One of the great characteristics of the Head Start program includes the identification and treatment of several medical conditions, many problems can be detected and treated before they become serious learning impediments.

The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 not only reauthorizes the program, it greatly improves and strengthens it. This bill will enable more low-income children to get into the Head Start program. Utah has only been able to serve just over 50 percent of its eligible children. This bill provides for the expansion of Head Start and Early Head Start in States, like Utah, serving fewer than 60 percent of eligible children.

This bill strengthens the accountability of Head Start programs and improves the overall quality of Head Start grantees, as they will be reviewed every 5 years. It clarifies and strengthens the role of the governing board in the oversight of the program. It also respects the priority role of parents and family through the collaborative role of the policy councils and operations of the Head Start programs.

Through this legislation, the Head Start workforce is strengthened, as goals have been established for education standards for Head Start teachers, curriculum specialists, and teacher assistants. It requires Head Start teachers to have in-service training every year and ensures professional development for all Head Start staff working directly with children.

The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 strengthens coordination and collaboration of the program by aligning services with

State early learning standards, providing professional development opportunities for Head Start staff, and promoting partnerships with other agencies.

Because I believe that education is best done at the local and State levels with appropriate Federal support, I am pleased that under this bill, states will designate a State Advisory Council that will closely address the education and care of children from birth to school entry. I strongly support the authorization for Centers of Excellence to designate model exemplary Head Start programs in every State.

One of the concerns expressed by many of us as we started this process years ago, was the challenge of strengthening the academic portions of Head Start. Under this bill, Head Start agencies will use scientifically based measures to support learning and program evaluation. Recommendations of the National Academy of Science study on Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children will be incorporated. Although the National Reporting System was intended to improve the program, it was found to be time-consuming and unwieldy for Head Start programs, and without demonstrated benefits. That reporting system has been eliminated under this bill.

In order to educate every child in our country, we must prepare them. Many pre-school children, particularly those who are disadvantaged, would have learning difficulties long before they entered elementary school. This bill will help these young, vulnerable, and teachable children develop the necessary early reading and math skills to be successful in school. It will address their health and nutritional needs, and it will provide important socialization. It also engages and empowers parents, and benefits us as a Nation.

I was proud to have worked with my colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to get this bill through the legislative process, and I was pleased to see it pass unanimously today.

Mr. President, I rise to speak concerning the Mortgage Cancellation Relief Act, S. 1394. In previous Congresses, I have introduced this legislation to provide immediate tax relief to homeowners adversely impacted by the recent downturn in the Nation's housing markets.

However, this Congress, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague from Michigan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, as a cosponsor of S. 1394. She was on the floor earlier this morning, and she had the opportunity to address this bill. I want to thank her for her continued interest in this issue.

I agree with her that it is well past time for Congress to act on this legislation.

There are a number of positive things I can say about S. 1394. It is a bipartisan bill. It is sound tax policy. It is good economic policy. And it treats those who have been impacted by housing declines fairly in their time of need.

As I mentioned, Senator Stabenow introduced this bill in May.

The President recommended a similar proposal in August.

However, the one not-so-positive thing I can say is that it is not law.

We are now into November. And despite all of the positive aspects of S. 1394, it has still not been reported by the Finance Committee or debated on the Senate floor.

The problem addressed by this legislation has its roots in the housing market.

In September, overall home sales slid 8 percent from the month before. Single-family sales slowed to the lowest pace in nearly 10 years.

Inventory is going up. At the end of August, there was a 9.6-month supply of homes. At the end of September, there was a 10.5-month supply of homes on the market.

So supply is up, and demand is down.

A high school senior, barely paying attention in his economics class, could tell you the result.

The result is a buyer's market. The median home price is down 4.2 percent from the year before.

With the dip in the housing market has come a corollary decrease in new home construction.

According to one recent estimate, construction spending on all new homes fell by 22 percent in 2007. The decline was even greater for single family homes--25 percent.

With another 4 percent dip in 2008, residential construction spending will be down to $254 billion in 2008 from $384 billion in 2005.

While this is not good news for the Nation's builders, at least it tells us that the U.S. housing market is functioning rationally. As the supply of housing tightens, demand and prices will once again go up. This leads many economists to believe that housing markets will turn the corner sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, however, we have a deadly economic mix of declining housing prices, interest rate volatility, and adjustable rate mortgages that are beginning to reset. When this convergence of events takes place and is followed by a certain unnecessarily punitive and totally unfair provision in our Tax Code, life becomes even more burdensome for some of our most vulnerable families and communities.

Let me explain why.

Adjustable rate mortgages are a product that provides an opportunity for millions of families to achieve home ownership. Because they pose less risk to lenders, these mortgages can be a more affordable product that allows families to purchase homes while assuming the risk that interest rates will increase.

Yet because of the easy availability of adjustable rate mortgages, some people took out very high mortgages and according to the Wall Street Journal, there are 17 percent adjustable rate mortgage holders who cannot make their payments on time.

We are currently witnessing how well private industry will be able to handle this problem on its own. The Nation's largest mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial, announced that it is modifying the terms of $16 billion in adjustable rate mortgages. Thirty thousand have already restructured their loans, and Countrywide intends to contact 52,000 borrowers to see if they would like to restructure their loans as well.

Still, the declines in the Nation's housing markets have left two groups particularly vulnerable.

First, there are those who sell their homes for less than the outstanding amount of the mortgage.

Second, there are those who are unable to make their mortgage payments and suffer foreclosure.

As I mentioned earlier, the Tax Code effectively kicks these folks while they are down.

The Internal Revenue Code defines income very broadly.

And when lenders forgive mortgage debt in a short-sale or a foreclosure, the borrower has technically received taxable income. Yet this is phantom income, and it makes little sense to have these financially vulnerable families getting a form 1099 and an increased tax liability for income they never received.

This makes little sense as public policy. And it is inequitable as tax policy.

Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code allows the exclusion of up to $250,000--or $500,000 on a joint return--of gain on the sale of a home. Few people realize gains in excess of this statutory exclusion. And for those who do, those gains are taxed at lower capital gains rates.

Yet if a family is in such a dire financial situation that it is losing its home or selling it at a loss, the phantom gain on these transactions is taxed at ordinary income rates.

With adjustable rate mortgages being reset, growing housing inventory, and declining housing prices, too many people will be getting a 1099 form in the mail telling them that they owe income taxes on this debt forgiveness.

This is not the way it ought to be.

Our legislation would remedy this problem by excluding this debt forgiveness from gross income.

There is precedent for this. Congress provided similar relief in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Given the ramifications of housing market declines, we should extend this needed relief to all Americans who find themselves receiving this kind of phantom income.

Yes, we would forgo some tax revenue by making this simple, fair, and commonsense change to our tax laws, but the House has found a reasonable offset that is supported by the housing industry so the net effect to the Federal budget should be zero.

As I stated earlier, it is time to act. I am not sure what the delay is.

The drop in the housing market and the problems with adjustable rate mortgages are no longer breaking news. It has been nearly 6 months since this bipartisan legislation was introduced. It has been over 2 months since the President indicated he supported this legislation and wanted to get it signed into law.

This Congress seems to have ground to a halt.

You can hear crickets chirping on the Senate floor lately. To say we are too busy to address this important legislation is simply false.

The lack of quick action on this legislation is no longer acceptable.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1394 and for the Senate to pass this legislation as soon as possible. Families in need and vulnerable communities demand that we act.

I ask unanimous consent that Jesse Baker, a Federal Government detailee, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this session.

Mr. President, I wish to speak regarding an effort that, in recent years, has received the support of many of us in the Senate. ``Feed America Thursday'' is an effort, promoted by a number of charitable organizations, aimed at fostering our Nation's spirit of selflessness and sacrifice in order to help those in need.

According to the Department of Agriculture's most recent numbers, roughly 35 million Americans, including 12 million children, live in households that do not have an adequate supply of food. As I have said in the past, it is simply inexcusable that, in the most prosperous nation on Earth, so many children go to bed hungry at night. While there are often disputes as to how we should address these problems, I believe there are steps that every American can take to help those in need.

The leaders and participants in ``Feed America Thursday'' encourage all Americans to sacrifice two meals on the Thursday before Thanksgiving Day and to donate the money they would have used for food to a charity or religious organization of their choice. The charities and churches, in turn, are encouraged to use these funds to feed the hungry.

Today, as I have in previous Congresses, I introduced a resolution that would designate this Thursday, November 15, 2007, as ``Feed America Thursday.'' I urge my Senate colleagues and every American to join me in feeding the hungry and affirming the values that make our Nation great.

Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S. 2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.

One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops.

At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing threat from resistant microorganisms.

Congress must listen.

In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:

Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands

of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals

are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic

may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration

move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a

very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in

the future.

Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling facts.

As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However, the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public health experts are finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and potentially threatening to our global security.

And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as the resistance problem grows.

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that work.''

Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone, muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their infection at home.

This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.

Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.

We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other words, ``it don't get no respect.''

We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR, tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months, starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.

Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold, but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the genesis of the STAAR Act.

Let me review briefly what our legislation does.

The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the problem and the need to address it.

In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.

An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food- producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.

As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2 million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.

There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9 billion in 2006 dollars!

Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just laid out.

First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.

Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.

It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful consideration to the location of this new Office.

We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of prominence and flexibility.

Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both safe

and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the action plan can be updated and strengthened.

It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for greater good.

So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical, behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address it.

Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites, geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope the network will be able to take into account successful models for surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45 million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year, and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.

Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S. 2313.

It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.

Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the other committees which have an interest in the bill.

A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.

In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask the following questions:

Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?

Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to develop an effective response?

What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat the problem?

It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.

That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.

Mr. President, as recent events in neighboring Virginia have made all too clear, this country faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Indeed, while recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years.

Now, Senator Brown and I are sounding the alarm as well.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. This alarming trend continues to grow and treatment options are sorely lacking.

Senator Brown and I have collaborated to develop legislation that takes a science-based approach to this problem. This legislation, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance Act or STAAR Act S. 2313, should be seen as a measure to catalyze a greater Government focus on a frightening, growing, public health problem which should be of concern to each and every one of us in this Nation.

One of the things that Senator Brown and I have found in our considerable study of this issue is that there is not adequate infrastructure developed within the Government to collect the data, to coordinate the research, and to conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drug-resistant infections in their tracks.

We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger, organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our Government and our scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops.

At the same time, we make perfectly clear that our bill is not the sole answer to the complex, vexing problem of antibiotic resistance. At a minimum we need better testing, better hospital controls, better medications, and better funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute of Medicine, the Resources for the Future, the Centers for Disease Control, and many others have been sounding the alarm about the growing threat from resistant microorganisms.

Congress must listen.

In fact, it its seminal report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs'', the Infectious Diseases Society, IDSA, said:

Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands

of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals

are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic

may harm millions. Unless Congress and the Administration

move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a

very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in

the future.

Indeed, the seminal IDSA report points out a number of compelling facts.

As the report notes, infections caused by resistant bacteria can strike anyone, young and old, rich or poor, healthy or ill. However, the problem of antibiotic resistance is especially acute for patients with compromised immune systems, such as persons living with HIV/AIDS.

The scope of the problem is equally of note. As IDSA has calculated, about 2 million people acquire bacterial infections in U.S. hospitals each year and as many as 90,000 die as a result. More and more, public health experts are finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Infections in both settings are increasing, and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening.

This is a costly problem, costly for patients, for society, and potentially threatening to our global security.

And, in fact, health care providers are running out of treatments as the resistance problem grows.

Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg said it well: ``We are running out of bullets for dealing with a number of bacterial, infections. Patients are dying because we no longer in many cases have antibiotics that work.''

Indeed, last week, noted Utah infectious disease expert Dr. Andy Pavia told me about a 14-year-old boy he had treated who had bone, muscle and lung infections from MRSA, an aggressive, difficult to treat, form of staph that has spread rapidly within communities. Half of the children he sees with severe MRSA infections acquired their infection at home.

This young man, Dr. Pavia relates, was forced to undergo multiple surgeries and 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. MRSA infections are steadily increasing in Utah, as well as across all other States.

Fortunately, that young man is on the road to recovery. But the statistics indicate it is just as likely that he would not be.

We are not only talking about MRSA. Dr. Pavia also cites the real crisis growing with resistant gram-negative bacteria, which he calls the ``Rodney Dangerfield of the infectious disease world''--in other words, ``it don't get no respect.''

We are also seeing increases in extensively drug-resistant, XDR, tuberculosis. There are numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobactor--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic.

Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for many months, starting with our collaboration on provisions in the Food and Drug Act Amendments recently signed into law by the President. We are also working with our colleagues in the House, foremost among them Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, author of the House STAAR Act.

Our conclusion is that the solutions to this problem are manifold, but they must start with a stronger Government effort. That is the genesis of the STAAR Act.

Let me review briefly what our legislation does.

The bill makes a series of congressional findings which layout the problem and the need to address it.

In particular, we note that while the advent of the antibiotic era has saved millions of lives and allowed for incredible medical progress, the increased use and overuse of antimicrobial drugs have correlated with an increase in the rates of antimicrobial resistance.

An important component to this problem is the fact that scientific evidence suggests the source of antimicrobial resistance in people is not only the overuse of human drugs, but also it may be from food- producing animals, which are exposed to antimicrobial drugs.

As scientists have found, nearly 70 percent of hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the U.S. are resistant to at least one drug; in some cases, the rate is much higher. In fact, each year nearly 2 million people contract bacterial infections in the hospital, and it is estimated that 90,000 of them die from the infections.

There seem to be no recent data on the costs associated with this problem, but a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found that six different antimicrobial-resistant strains of bacteria accounted for $1.3 billion in nationwide hospital costs--almost $1.9 billion in 2006 dollars!

Here is how our bill attempts to address the problems I have just laid out.

First, the bill establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance in the Department of Health and Human Services. That Office will work with the Task Force to issue biennial updates to the Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, including enhanced plans for addressing the problem here and abroad. As appropriate, the Office's Director will establish benchmarks for achieving the plan's goals, assess patterns of antimicrobial resistance emergence and their impact on clinical outcomes, determine how antimicrobial products are being used in humans, animals and plants, and recommend where additional federally-supported studies may be beneficial.

Second, we renew the Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force authorized in section 319E of the Public Health Service Act. The Task Force, whose authorization lapsed last year, is comprised of representatives from the following Federal agencies and offices, plus any others the Secretary deems necessary: the new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance established in the bill; the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response; the Centers for Disease Control; the Food and Drug Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the Health Resources and Services Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and State.

It is important to note that Senator Brown and I gave careful consideration to the location of this new Office.

We considered locating it at the CDC, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and in the Office of the Secretary, OS. There are benefits and drawbacks to each. Indeed, had OASH its previous organizational structure, that is, line authority over the Public Health Service agencies, that decision would have been easy. But since a change was made many years ago to devolve most of the OASH functions to the separate PHS agencies, OASH was not the natural locus for the new Office, we decided. Our final conclusion was that it was most appropriate to locate the new office in OS, both for reasons of prominence and flexibility.

Third, S. 2313 establishes a Public Health Antimicrobial Advisory Board, a panel of outside experts who will advise the Secretary on ways to encourage an adequate supply of antimicrobial products that are both safe

and effective; help determine what research priorities should be, what data and surveillance are necessary to be collected, and assess how the action plan can be updated and strengthened.

It is very important to Senator Brown, if I may speak for him, and to me that our measure be seen as a collaborative effort that draws on the strengths of existing organizations and catalyzes their efforts for greater good.

So, fourth, our bill requires the Secretary--working through the new Office, the CDC and the NIH, in consultation with other appropriate agencies--to develop a antimicrobial resistance strategic research plan that strengthens existing epidemiological, interventional, clinical, behavioral, translational and basic research efforts to advance our understanding of the emergence of resistance and how best to address it.

Fifth, the bill authorizes establishment of at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites, geographically dispersed across the U.S. The sites will monitor the emergence of resistant pathogens in individuals, study the epidemiology of such pathogens and evaluate the efficacy of interventions, and study problems associated with antimicrobial use. In addition, we are asking the network to assess the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of surveillance and screening programs in differing health care and institutional settings, such as schools, and evaluate current treatment protocols and make appropriate recommendations on best practices for treating drug resistant infections. It is my hope the network will be able to take into account successful models for surveillance and screening such as inpatient programs of the Veterans Health Administration, work done in States such as Illinois, New York and the Utah Aware program, and experience overseas in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. Our bill authorizes $45 million for these networks in fiscal year 2008, $65 million next year, and $120 million in fiscal year 2010.

Finally, I would like to speak about data collection activities in S. 2313.

It has become obvious to me that there is a pressing need for better surveillance of antibiotic resistance and better data collection that is shared both within States and across States. From my long work on public health issues, it is equally clear to me that there is a need for the government to give guidance--guidance, not a mandate--on uniform ways in which those data should be collected so that all of the agencies are talking the same talk, so speak.

Our bill asks the Office of Antimicrobial Research to work with the Task Force and member agencies to develop those uniform standards for data collection. In drafting S. 2313, Senator Brown and I were very sensitive to the jurisdictional needs of other Committees. At the same time, it is clear that any serious effort to address antimicrobial resistance must be spread across the many agencies of Government, each of which has a role to play in our collaborative effort. It is for that reason that our bill asks the Office and Task Force to work with the other agencies, some of which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee. If this language needs to be strengthened as consideration of S. 2313 progresses, it is our hope to work with the other committees which have an interest in the bill.

A second issue related to data collection is the fact that there is a pressing need for epidemiologists and other public health experts to begin to see data showing how many antibiotics are being distributed and used by patients so that they can evaluate the amount of resistance that is emerging. In writing our bill, we were sensitive to the need to provide scientists with these data, while at the same time working to make any new reporting provisions the least burdensome possible, while protecting both the national security and propriety aspects of those data. For that reason, our bill builds on current reporting to the FDA of pharmaceutical distribution data. Those data are currently submitted by manufacturers on the anniversary date of the product's approval. Our bill would move that reporting date to 60 days after the beginning of each calendar year, thus allowing epidemiologists to compare data from year to year. Our second concern, that of potentially harmful release of data, was addressed in the following way. Our bill precludes the release of data which are proprietary in nature and whose release could have the perverse result of providing a disincentive to antibiotic development. This strong section, section 7 of the bill, also precludes release of data which could be harmful to our national defense.

In closing, I wish to commend S. 2313 to my colleagues and ask for their serious consideration of this measure. For those who doubt the need for this legislation, if there are any doubters among us, I ask the following questions:

Where do we begin to get serious to address this concern?

Where do we begin to recognize that it will take literally years to develop an effective response?

What are we doing to develop the collaboration across agencies to assure the American public we are developing an action plan to combat the problem?

It is our hope that STAAR Act will begin to catalyze that response.

That is the motive behind our introduction of this legislation.

We look forward to working with our colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as consideration of this legislation begins and we remain available to our colleagues to answer any questions or concerns they may have about this legislation.