Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 312, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, in the early morning hours of August 6, 2007, my home State of Utah, our home State of Utah--my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, is with me today--suffered a seismic event at the Crandall Canyon mine in Emery County. These ``mountain bumps'' set up a chain of events that culminated in great tragedy and tremendous sorrow to all of our fellow Utahans and, I think, to many people across the country.

As a team of miners was working on its shift at the Crandall Canyon mine, the earth shifted and debris and ruin rained down trapping six men, all of whom have remained missing since August 6.

As news began to travel regarding the collapse and the lives in peril, crews began working to somehow, some way, free the six men. As one day turned into the next and hopes were lifted, just to sadly be dashed, one thing has remained constant: men and women from all walks of life have come together to fight for Manuel Sanchez, Kerry Allred, Luis Hernandez, Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, and Don Erickson.

The list is long and varied of the many who have sacrificed and given their time, knowledge, and resources to help in this tragedy. The list includes officials from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration; Murray Energy Corporation; the United States Air Force; Utah's Departments of Public Safety, Natural Resources and Human Services; the Utah Air National Guard; local, State and national government; and last but perhaps most importantly of all the men, women and children living in the communities impacted by this tragedy.

As our State and Nation watched closely day after day for news of hope and rescue, we suffered another devastating blow the evening of August 16, 2007, when another seismic bump inside the mine buried rescue crews in coal and debris. As another new tragedy unfolded, many flew into action to now rescue the rescuers. People rushed to the scene to offer aid and valiantly try to save additional lives. Stories are told of miners using their bare hands to dig out buried miners.

As we heard the news of first one rescuer's death, then another, and another, it is difficult to describe the overwhelming sorrow and disbelief Utahns felt at the deaths of those who had risked everything for their co-workers, friends, and fellow miners.

Many were saved that evening, but sadly three lost their lives for others.

Dale Black was in the mine desperately trying to reach his cousin, Kerry Allred. In fact, he wasn't even supposed to have been in the mine that evening. He had been promoted the day before and would now be assigned as a rescue manager, working outside the mine. However, as Dale's brother Guy stated, ``That's Dale. He wouldn't have let his guys go in without him.''

Gary Lynn ``Gibb'' Jensen from Redmond, UT, was an employee working for MSHA who was no stranger to mining. He had been in the mining industry in various capacities for 35 years and was described by others as someone who steered his career toward mine safety. He never hesitated to better the lives of his fellow ``coal'' miners.

And finally, Brandon Kimber, a father of a 5-year-old daughter and twin 4-year-old boys. He was relatively new to the mining industry, only working in the mines for 3\1/2\ years. He was described as an unselfish, wonderful man who never hesitated to help others.

Dale Black, Brandon Kimber, and Gary Jensen will long be remembered for their selfless acts that day. These were three humble miners who are now three wonderful heroes.

As our State and Nation grapples with this tragedy and looks for answers, I do not want us in our haste to solve this tragedy overlook the contributions miners and the mining industry has made to America for many, many years. We want to solve this tragedy, but we haven't been able to. The original six miners are still buried in the mine. We hope we can recover them.

Mining is a community, it is a brotherhood, and it helps fuel our economy and growth. Generations of Utahns from many of our communities have toiled in and helped propel the mining industry. Many men and women return home each evening with faces marred by coal dust, and tired bodies. However, to many Utahns mining is a way of life and their contributions to this important industry must always be appreciated.

As I have traveled throughout our State and Nation, some of the most wonderful people I have met and talked with are miners. They are humble, they work hard, and they display courage each day as they enter the mines to make a living and support their families.

Throughout the communities bordering the Crandall Canyon Mine, you don't need to travel far to see a sign, a t-shirt, or some other display urging all to ``save our miners,'' ``pray for our miners,'' and ``love our miners.'' I have witnessed first-hand the courage, fortitude, and heroism of many wonderful people to do all three save, pray, and love our miners.

I have been saddened greatly by the events that have transpired in my home state throughout the past several weeks. The Crandall Canyon Mine collapse and tragedy will forever be remembered for the grief we shared as a State, and the valiant, and courageous efforts displayed by many. In the depths of this tragedy heroes emerged, and our faith in the human spirit lives on through the sacrifices made by many to comfort, and save the lives of others.

Senator Bennett and I have introduced this resolution which has been agreed to, honoring the sacrifice of the miners and rescue workers and expressing the condolences of the Senate and our Nation to their families.

I have been almost blown away by the kindness of our fellow Utahns and the courage and strength of those who have tried to save these miners. I have appreciated the leadership of the mayors of both Huntington and Price who have stood so valiantly as rocks against the pain and suffering these good people have suffered. I am so grateful to know these people. My heart goes out to the families of these miners and, of course, their children. I hope and pray that somehow we can do a lasting memorial for these folks who have died and who have worked so hard to try and support their families. I was happy to urge our colleagues to support this resolution, and I appreciate their support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized.

We only have about 8 minutes to go, but that is fine.

Mr. President, I add to that that it is very significant. We do know that.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his remarks because he is a leader in this area and certainly has no higher interest than protecting our country and our citizens.

Mr. President, as Congress prepares to adjourn for the traditional August recess, I want to draw continued emphasis to a significant issue: FISA modernization.

I am greatly encouraged by the bipartisan negotiations concerning this topic. However, I remain troubled about the possibility of adjournment without resolution of this vital initiative. It is very-- simple passing a bill with limited FISA modernization will contribute to a safer America. If passing this bill means we must delay our recess, then we must do it. We should be able to get together today, though.

Do you think al-Qaida takes a recess? It is essential that we not adjourn until we send an appropriate bill to the President.

While some issues that we debate in Congress necessitate that we persuade Members of a pressing need, this is not one of them. Every Senator in the 110th Congress knows that the current FISA statute has loopholes which are putting our country at increased risk.

How should we tackle this issue? I suggest we take a logical and sound approach: Identify the problem, discuss and debate solutions, implement the solution. In this case, we have identified the problem.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our Nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets-- their plans and intentions--without them knowing we've got them.

The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has done a tremendous job in explaining the exceptional problems that our intelligence community continues to encounter based on antiquated sections of the law. When the United States Director of National Intelligence says our country is at risk, I hope we are listening. Let me read a quote that Director McConnell recently stated:

Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current

law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant

number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a

court order to monitor the communications of foreigners

suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in

foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law

simply has not kept pace with technology.

This is a powerful statement that Director McConnell gives. However, I must disagree with one thing he says. I don't think most Americans would be ``surprised'' by what our current law requires, I think most Americans would be outraged by what our current law requires. A terrorist in Afghanistan speaks with a terrorist in Iraq, and U.S. intelligence agencies need a court order to listen to this conversation?

This is absurd.

We need to bring FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States.

The President of the United States has also recognized the perilous situation in which we find ourselves. In his radio address last weekend, he stated that ``Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country.''

Let's look closely at this. Our intelligence community is saying that we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence. Why are we missing this intelligence? Is it because we don't know how to get it?

No.

Is it because we don't have the ability or funds to get it?

No.

Is it because terrorist groups have technology that we can't exploit?

No.

It is because a law passed in 1978 has not been appropriately amended to conform with the technological advances that we have seen since that time. Why are we handcuffing ourselves?

I believe most Americans would look at this situation and simply shake their heads.

If we know we have a problem, and we know how to fix it, why don't we? Is the excuse that we might not have enough time before recess?

Of course we have time.

We'll make time.

It is outrageous that we would even consider a recess while this problem and other loopholes of the FISA law remain intact.

If we can't get this done, why are we here? It is no wonder that the approval ratings for Congress are approaching all time lows.

Quite simply, we have a problem, but we know how to fix it. I note that Senator Bond has introduced a straight

forward measure which we can pass today.

This bill will put the tools back in the hands of the people who work tirelessly in providing a safe environment for American families throughout this great country.

This amendment of FISA simply returns the law to its original intent, which is twofold: first, allowing surveillance of foreign targets, who were never underprotected under FISA; and second, guaranteeing the privacy and rights of U.S. persons, who remain protected.

It is time to address this situation. I would ask my colleagues to join me in pledging to pass legislation in this area before we recess. This is not about partisan politics.

This is about protecting Americans. We are all painfully aware of the continued dangers that our country continues to face at the hands of organized groups and dedicated individuals who desire nothing more than the collapse of our country as a superpower.

This is not a case of the boy who cried wolf. We know the threats are out there. However, each day that passes creates emotional distance between the nightmares of September 11, and each new day provides opportunities to heal.

We don't have to live our lives in fear, but we have to acknowledge that the world changed that day. Rather than obsessing over news reports, let's enjoy the tremendous opportunities that the greatest Nation on Earth provides.

And let's ensure that all of the dedicated and noble professionals who play a part in ensuring our liberty and safety are not hampered by nonpartisan problems that we have the ability to fix.

We always hear that the terrorists have an asymmetrical advantage over us: They do not operate as nation-states, and some of them are willing to die as suicide bombers.

But we have a massive asymmetrical advantage over them: Our technological prowess.

Are we to compromise one of our greatest strengths, when that strength is essential, effective and lawful?

I remind my colleagues that even though we will return to our States for the recess, our enemies and their threats don't go away. They don't adjust their schedules to fit ours.

Make no mistake, inaction on our part needlessly subjects every American to increased danger. We need to act.

We have two options: Cut into August recess if necessary to provide safety to Americans, or go home and leave this vulnerability intact.

The answer is an easy one: Let's ensure that our defenders have all of the tools they need for our continued safety, no matter how long it takes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in pledging to pass FISA modernization legislation before our recess. I yield the floor.

I would also like to speak in support of the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Special Funding Program for type I diabetes research. My record as an advocate for diabetes research and treatment programs is well documented. I have helped to lead the efforts in past years to reauthorize these programs and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make the reauthorization of these programs a priority for the Finance Committee this Congress.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor and commemorate one of Utah's fallen sons. SFC Nathan L. Winder was a native of Blanding, Utah, and a member of the 1st Special Forces Group stationed at Fort Lewis, WA. I have been informed that this good soldier tragically lost his life as he and his U.S. Special Forces Quick Reaction team came to the aid of another unit that was ambushed and taking on small-arms fire in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq.

Shortly after graduating from high school, Sergeant Winder left his home in Blanding, UT, to pursue a career in the Armed Forces. In 2006, he graduated from the special forces qualification course in Fort Bragg, NC, and earned the coveted Green Beret.

As a 2-year-old boy, he was abandoned on the steps of a courthouse in Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after, he was offered a better life and a new beginning in the loving home of Tom and Teri Winder, incredible parents of 20 children. In his parents' eyes, it was from his abandonment and subsequent adoption that he developed the fierce desire to offer others the same kind of hope that was offered him.

Throughout his life, it was clear that Sergeant Winder had a special place in his heart for children. His family remembers how he often remarked in his e-mails that Iraqi children seemed so appreciative of the little things, like a wave from a U.S. soldier, a smile, or even a small piece of candy. Teri Winder said of her son, ``He loved the children. He gave them a sense that they were cared about.'' He did everything he could to offer them the hope he so gratefully received so many years ago. He was known for always carrying toys and candy to hand out to the Iraqi children.

Sergeant Winder was a man who lived his life with a profound purpose, deeply rooted in his convictions of moral reciprocity. His greatest desire was to take the freedom afforded to him and offer it to those who had none. Tom Winder said his son wanted the people in Iraq, if only for a moment, to feel some sense of freedom, however seemingly minute its manifestation.

In addition to two wonderful parents and 19 brothers and sisters, Sergeant Winder is survived by his wife Mechelle and an 11-year-old son. This great soldier and his family will always be in my memory and prayers.

Sergeant Nathan S. Barnes

Mr. President, today I also pay tribute to SGT Nathan S. Barnes of American Fork, UT, who recently gave his life during a combat mission in Iraq. Sergeant Barnes was a member of the 10th Mountain Division's 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment stationed out of Fort Drum, NY.

I have been informed that 400 American flags lined the streets leading to the Sergeant Barnes's family home in American Fork. I also understand that on the day of his funeral, hundreds of Boy Scouts, each bearing a U.S. flag and standing at attention, gathered along either side of the street to honor the fallen soldier.

That is the kind of tribute this brave and selfless soldier merits.

Sergeant Barnes is remembered by his family members and fellow soldiers for his love of friends and family, and for his humor, his commitment to serving the country and his profound dedication to his faith.

Sergeant Barnes was a man who truly lived an abundant life. When not engaged in the service of his country, the soldier enjoyed spending time outdoors jogging, hiking, camping, and hunting. Friends and family recall his insatiable appetite for good literature. All of these interests and hobbies were part of Sergeant Barnes' unique way of exploring what life had to offer him.

I would submit to you this day, Mr. President, that in a time when patriotism is a virtue often overlooked and lost in the midst of the swirl of issues, Sergeant Barnes' sacrifice brings us back to the core of what it means to be a patriot. I hope and pray that his sacrifice will inspire us all to reach for new levels of excellence and citizenship, to recommit ourselves to a greater measure of devotion to family and country, and above all, to continue to pursue ways to provide for a more perfect America.

I am honored and humbled by this opportunity to commemorate the life of SGT Nathan S. Barnes. He served his country with pride and answered its call when it needed him most. I will always remember him and his family in my prayers. Our nation owes SGT Nathan S. Barnes a giant debt of gratitude and for that reason I pay tribute today to his dedicated and selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies, television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely because of intellectual property rights.

However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts. However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving American industry around the world.

In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I support that goal.

As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some areas we still have not gotten it right.

It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these issues and move this bill forward.

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress. I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to helping him.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback, Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this part of the U.S.

Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755. By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them, so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann, and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper floor in the nearby town of Christiansted.

They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with Beekman and Cruger not only supported him financially, but they introduced him to business, economics, and trade.

Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him, as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton would later found the Federalist Party in America.

Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history.

Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution, which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non- presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency.

Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St. Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies, television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely because of intellectual property rights.

However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts. However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving American industry around the world.

In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I support that goal.

As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some areas we still have not gotten it right.

It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these issues and move this bill forward.

I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress. I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to helping him.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback, Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this part of the U.S.

Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755. By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them, so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann, and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper floor in the nearby town of Christiansted.

They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with Beekman and Cruger not only supported him financially, but they introduced him to business, economics, and trade.

Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him, as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton would later found the Federalist Party in America.

Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history.

Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution, which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non- presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency.

Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St. Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Project Compassion. Project Compassion was founded by Ms. Kaziah Hancock in my home State of Utah. She and the other members of Project Compassion volunteer their time to create gallery-quality portraits of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines who have fallen in combat and send them to the families of these troops. These wonderful patriots receive no compensation for their efforts to honor the service and sacrifice of the members of our military.

This gift offers comfort and consolation to the family members of those troops who fall in battle. To date, Ms. Hancock and the other volunteers of Project Compassion have presented over 700 paintings to the families of America's fallen heroes. These portraits provide a real sense of closure and remembrance to the family members of our fallen heroes. Even though the portraits created by Project Compassion members are extremely well done by talented artists, they accept no compensation for their efforts, they merely do it out of love.

It is my belief that Ms. Hancock and the other members of Project Compassion demonstrate extraordinary patriotism and support for our service men and women, and do so without expectation of financial gain or recognition. We owe these wonderful people our heartfelt thanks and deepest respect. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution, and offer their gratitude for the work performed by these remarkable individuals.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of an organization that has, over the last century, worked so amazingly hard to serve the people and communities of my home State of Utah. This year, the Utah League of Cities and Towns celebrates its 100th Anniversary.

The Utah League of Cities and Towns, ULCT, has done a wonderful job of representing hundreds of cities and towns throughout a large and growing State for 100 years now. Senator Bennett and I are very proud of the way it has advocated for the success of each city and town throughout Utah and we would like to honor its wonderful accomplishment by introducing this resolution to celebrate its 100th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this resolution and in wishing the members of the ULCT another 100 years of success in the century to come.

Mr. President, will the leader yield?

Mr. President, apparently this was a sorry situation. Nobody's vote would be changed. Why can't we ask unanimous consent that these votes be counted?

You would object to it?

I was requesting that we should consider unanimous consent that their votes be counted.

I understand.

Madam President, as everybody knows, I have been in the CHIP battle since the beginning. I just want to pay a great deal of tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus; the distinguished ranking member, Senator Grassley; and, of course, Senator Rockefeller.

In the beginning instance of CHIP, my good friend, Senator Kennedy, and also Senator Snowe, my dear friend--all of these people had a lot to do with the CHIP bill from the beginning. And I have to say that the original Hatch-Kennedy bill became the CHIP bill back in 1997, and, of course, it has come all of this way to today where we are looking for renewal.

There are some facts that really ought to be put into the equation here today, and I thought I would just spend a few minutes on some of the facts regarding CHIP.

No. 1: The Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is not full of budget gimmicks. The Senate Budget Committee has certified that this legislation complies with pay-go rules of both the 6- and 11-year base under the pay-go rule. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed its 5-year and 10-year expenditures and revenue raisers and believes they are balanced on an on-budget basis. This bill is a 5-year authorization and is fully paid for with offsets. This bill is not a 10-year reauthorization, and that is an important point to remember. The CHIP program must be reauthorized in 5 years.

Fact two: Some have indicated that the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization imposes up to a $10 tax on a cigar. Well, the tobacco tax included in our bill prorates tobacco rates or taxes on cigars. The tax imposed on cigars is based on the price of a cigar. In very few instances will an individual cigar be taxed at $10.

Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act does not increase the crowd-out rate. There is crowd-out because there is always going to be crowd-out when you try to solve some of these very serious problems. Although, because we are covering more children, some have concern that the crowd-out rate will increase, according to CBO, the fact is that the crowd-out rates will not increase.

Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act prohibits the Federal Government from granting future State waivers to cover nonpregnant adults through CHIP. Our bill puts the emphasis back on low-income, uninsured children. Simply put, our bill puts an immediate stop to States being granted future waivers to cover nonpregnant adults.

Let me give you another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act eliminates enhanced Federal matching rates for nonpregnant adults. At the beginning of fiscal year 2009, States will receive lower Federal matching rates for childless adults, and in fiscal year 2010, childless adults will not be covered under CHIP. At the beginning of fiscal year 2010, only States with significant outreach efforts for low-income uninsured children will receive enhanced match rates for parents; others will receive the lower Medicaid match rate, or FMAP, for adults.

Starting in fiscal year 2011, all States will receive a lower Federal match rate for parents. Those States covering more lower income kids will receive REMAP--that is the mid-point between the CHIP matching rate and the lower Medicaid matching rate. Other States will receive FMAP for CHIP parents.

Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act provides lower matching rates to States for those individuals 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above who are covered under CHIP, thus penalizing States that want to cover higher income children.

Under the current CHIP bill, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for all income levels. Our bill discourages States from covering higher income individuals in the CHIP program. After enactment of our bill, States that have new waivers approved to cover 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above would only receive a lower FMAP payment for higher income individuals.

Let me give one more fact, and then I will make some other points. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act is an effective children's health program and a small part of the overall cost of health. CHIP is not an entitlement program. That is something a lot of people don't understand. We drafted it that way because I didn't want it to be an entitlement program. Now some say we will never be able to stop it. That may be because it works. It has saved literally millions of children. It is a capped block grant program, where States are given flexibility to cover their low-income uninsured children.

According to CMS, the agency that has a lot to do with health care, in 2005, we spent a total of $1.98 trillion on our Nation's health care system. Private expenditures were $1.08 trillion. The Federal Government's expenditures were $900 billion. Total Medicare spending was $342 billion in 2005, according to CMS, and Medicaid was $177 billion in Federal dollars. Our bill today funds CHIP at $60 billion over 5 years. That is the $25 billion base figure and an additional $35 billion to cover more children. This is a fraction of the total cost of health care in our country to provide care for low-income, uninsured children. Covering these children is worth every cent. We spend almost $2 trillion on health care, and the equivalent of $12 billion a year is what this program will cost, out of $2 trillion in health care, $900 billion of which happens to be Federal dollars. Only $12 billion goes to these kids, mainly children of the working poor who earn enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid but don't have enough money to buy private health insurance.

That is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. The CHIP bill, up to now, has worked quite well in spite of the waivers, which I believe should not have been granted in many respects by the last two Administrations. But I have to say this program has worked very well.

I also wish to let everybody know that I support S. 1893, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. Over the past few days, I have been listening to the floor debate on the bill being considered on the Senate floor this week. I have to admit, at some points during the debate, the descriptions I am hearing don't even sound like the bill I introduced with Senators Baucus, Grassley, and Rockefeller. Indeed, I believe there have been many allegations by opponents of S. 1893 that are not accurate. Therefore, I would like to take a few minutes to correct the record so my Senate colleagues hear from both sides before making a final decision on how to vote on this bill later this week.

First, I take issue with the point that our legislation is full of budget gimmicks. I made that point before, but I will remake some of these points. The Senate Budget Committee has certified this legislation does comply with pay-go rules on both the 6-year and 11- year bases under the pay-go rule. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Dr. Peter Orszag, told us in last week's Finance Committee markup that CBO reviewed the bill's 5-year and 10-year expenditures and revenue raisers, and CBO believes they are balanced on an onbudget basis. In addition, this bill is a 5-year authorization that is fully paid with offsets. This is how our rules operate. Those who talk about its 10-year impact fail to note this bill is not a 10- year reauthorization. That is an important point to remember. They argue that it will be very expensive in 10 years. Who knows? I can't tell you what it is going to cost in the remaining 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years not covered by this bill, but we should all be working to try and keep costs down. We have to look at the CHIP program again in 5 years and reauthorize it.

I assure my colleagues that when writing this bill, we did everything possible to comply with the budget rules, and any assertion to the contrary is plain false. Further, I wish to remind my colleagues that when CHIP was established in 1997, we had a set amount of money and, as a result, the budget baseline did not assume any rate of growth for the CHIP program. Additionally, the budget rules did not consider the fact that health care costs are rising by 9 percent each year. That is not CHIP's fault. In many respects, that is our fault in the Congress due the way we run things around here.

Some would say that is why we shouldn't have CHIP. I guess that is why we shouldn't have any Federal programs, if that is the argument. The fact is, CHIP has worked abundantly well to help the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. I want to see that continue.

The budget rules also did not consider the increasing number of children enrolling in the CHIP program. Therefore, there is only $5 billion per year for the CHIP program in the budget baseline. To me, this number is unrealistic, and I think anybody who looks at it would agree. It creates a situation which is extremely frustrating because health care costs continue to increase in the CHIP program just like every other health care program is going up 9 percent a year. That is somewhat of a victory because it used to go up 13 percent a year. As a result, we had to come up with the money to keep the current program functioning, not to mention additional sums for providing coverage to uninsured, low-income children without health care. There are many incidents of young children who don't have health care beyond the CHIP program or that haven't been covered by the CHIP program.

To keep the program running as it currently exists, it will cost the Federal Government $14 billion. We fixed the problem by addressing the shortfall. Simply put, we had to comply with the budget rules in this bill, and we did. So in 5 years, the Congress will have to come up with money to keep the program operating, similar to the challenge we are facing with our $14 billion deficit right now.

We need to be realistic. Since CHIP is not a permanent program and not an entitlement program, we in Congress have an even bigger job to keep the program running efficiently in the next 5 years. The current budget rules do not include a realistic rate of growth after the program expires. I can only conclude, then, with this bill, we are doing the best we can under very difficult circumstances for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, the ones left out of the Medicaid process and whose parents don't earn enough money to buy insurance.

Another issue I have heard being raised is that our legislation will raise tobacco taxes on cigars to $10 a cigar. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act does not impose a $10 tax on each cigar. In fact, the tobacco tax included in our bill prorates tobacco taxes on cigars. The tax imposed on cigars is based on the price of the cigar. In very few instances will an individual cigar be taxed at $10, and those who can afford that kind of cigar can afford the taxes.

I know Senators are concerned about what some term ``crowd-out.'' Crowd-out is having individuals who are currently covered by private health insurance drop their private health insurance to be covered by a government program.

This was my concern, as it was for Senator Kennedy, when we enacted CHIP originally. It is a valid concern today as well. But allegations that this bill increases the crowd-out rate are untrue. According to CBO, the fact is, the crowd-out rate will not increase for the basic CHIP program. While crowd-out does remain a serious problem, the crowd- out rate is not worsened by our bill. People will turn to whatever is better for them. If the CHIP bill is better for these kids, they are going to turn to it. I don't think we can blame them for that. Of course, the argument is that this is the camel's nose under the tent for one-size-fits-all socialized medicine. No, it isn't. But some want to make it that type of a program. I believe the House may be well on its way to trying to make it that, but we don't in this bill.

In fact, during the Senate Finance Committee markup last week, CBO Director Peter Orszag told us the crowd-out rate for this bill is the same as the

crowd-out rate for the original CHIP program. In addition, the CBO Director told us that in the absence of a mandate, this approach is as efficient as you can possibly get per dollars spent to get a reduction in the number of uninsured children, the goal of the CHIP program. This is because the incentive fund which was created in this bill to reward States for lowering the number of uninsured, low-income kids is designed so it provides a payment per child only for new Medicaid children as opposed to new CHIP children. This is helpful with crowd- out, first, because Medicaid is for lower income kids who are less likely to have the option of private coverage, so tilting toward Medicaid is beneficial. Second, the payments for the incentive fund payments are graduated. In other words, they are not based on random noise. The combination of these two is an efficient outcome.

According to CBO, the approach we take in our bill is probably the most efficient way to have new dollars spent to reduce the number of uninsured children.

Another issue that continues to be raised is adult coverage under CHIP. Unfortunately, the opponents of the bill have not been very clear about how adults are treated under this legislation. If I were the only one drafting the bill, which obviously I am not, I would like to see all adults removed from the CHIP program today, or tomorrow, to be a little more precise. I don't think they have any business receiving health care through a program created for low-income, uninsured children. In fact, I am very disappointed with our administration for continuing to grant Federal waivers to States to cover adults through CHIP. This has been extremely frustrating to me. Of course, our original language allowed them to do it, but we never dreamed for a minute they would allow some States to have more adults on this program than children. Not only is that ridiculous, that was never contemplated. But that is what has happened.

This legislation addresses this matter by phasing childless adults off the CHIP program and lowering the Federal matching rate for parents and States who currently are covered under the CHIP program. Recently, Senators Grassley, Roberts, and I wrote both the President and my good friend, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, urging the administration to stop granting States any new adult waivers. I was pleased to hear back from Secretary Leavitt regarding adult waivers. I truly believe the letter Senators Grassley, Roberts, and I sent to the President and Secretary Leavitt, along with the CHIP reauthorization bill we drafted, made some impact with the administration. I am encouraged that the administration says it does not intend to approve any new adult waivers or renew any waivers for adults. I am also encouraged to see the administration is making progress toward removing adults from the CHIP program. However, these decisions should have been made a long time ago. I take issue with the point that our legislation will actually reverse the progress the administration is making with the States. I truly believe that one of the reasons the administration is finally moving forward on this is due to the pressures it has received from Congress to remove adults from the program. I look forward to working with the administration to make this a reality.

To be fair, most of these waivers were granted before Secretary Leavitt took over at that position. I don't want to particularly blame him, but some waivers have been approved afterwards as well. I think the same crowd down there has been doing it and, of course, Secretary Leavitt has been the one who some would blame, although I think unjustifiably.

The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act prohibits the Federal Government from granting future State waivers to cover nonpregnant adults through CHIP once and for all. Simply put, our bill puts an immediate stop to States being granted future waivers to cover nonpregnant adults. Our bill puts the emphasis back on low-income, uninsured children. As one of the original authors of the CHIP program, I am here to tell Senators we did not create CHIP for adults. I wish we could do more for the working poor adults, but we do not have the money, and this program was not created for adults. We created CHIP for low-income uninsured children.

On a related matter, our legislation also eliminates enhanced Federal matching rates for adults, with the exception of pregnant women.

Today, under CHIP, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for those covered under CHIP. The Medicaid Federal medical assistance percentage, known as FMAP, ranges between 50 percent and 76 percent in fiscal year 2006; the CHIP FMAP ranges from 65 percent to 83.2 percent.

At the beginning of fiscal year 2009, States will receive lower Federal matching rates for childless adults, and in fiscal year 2010, childless adults will no longer be covered under CHIP. With regard to parents, at the beginning of fiscal year 2010, only States that have covered more low-income uninsured children or have undertaken significant outreach efforts for low-income uninsured children will receive enhanced match rates for parents; the others will receive the lower Medicaid match rate, or FMAP, for adults.

Starting in fiscal year 2011, all States will receive a lower Federal matching rate for parents. Those States covering more lower income kids or with significant outreach efforts will receive REMAP. That is the midpoint between the CHIP matching rate and the lower Medicaid matching rate. The other States will receive FMAP for CHIP parents.

Many have also raised concerns about the income eligibility level of those covered by CHIP.

The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act provides lower matching rates to States for those individuals with incomes at 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above who are covered under CHIP, thus penalizing States that want to cover higher income children.

I might add, the original bill had us at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, and approximately 90 percent of the children covered by CHIP were 200 percent of the federal poverty rate and below.

Today, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for all income levels. Our bill discourages States from covering higher income individuals in the CHIP program. Once our bill is enacted, States that have new waivers approved to cover individuals 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above would only receive the lower FMAP payment for these higher income individuals.

To me, this is dramatic improvement over current law which allows higher income individuals to receive the same Federal matching rate provided to States for covering low-income children through the CHIP program.

Finally, I emphasize that the CHIP program is an effective children's health program and a small part of overall health care costs. I make that point one more time. CHIP is not an entitlement program. It is a capped, block-granted program where the States are given flexibility and control, to cover their low-income uninsured children. It is totally voluntary on the part of a State to participate and offer CHIP program benefits to its residents.

According to CMS, in 2005 we spent a total of $1.98 trillion on our Nation's health care system. Private expenditures were $1.08 trillion, and $900 billion in Federal dollars. Total Medicare spending was $342 billion in 2005, and Medicaid was 177 billion in Federal dollars.

Our bill today funds CHIP--for 5 years--at $60 billion over the 5- year period. It is a fraction of the overall health care costs. If you want to divide it by 5, it is $12 billion a year out of a $2 trillion expenditure in this country for total health care, and out of a $900 billion Federal expenditure for health care. This $12 billion per year is a fraction of the cost, or should I say, this $60 billion over 5 years is a fraction of the cost to provide care for low-income uninsured children.

Now, I think it is pathetic for people to argue that this is running out of control when we are trying to cover kids who have not been covered, as well as those who have--when it costs, like I say, $12 billion a year out of $900 billion spent by the Federal Government. I wish we had a better system in the sense that the private sector could take care of everybody. I think part of

our problem is we have too much Federal Government involvement. But the fact is, for the CHIP program to be reauthorized, it is a very minuscule amount of money compared to the $900 billion, every year, the Federal Government pays for health care coverage.

Covering these children is worth every cent. If we do not take care of these children, these low-income uninsured children, these kids are going to have serious health care problems in the future, and it is going to cost the federal government a lot more than what reauthorizing the CHIP program is going to cost us. We have to look forward to the future and do everything in our power to help these children.

It is my hope that I have cleared up some of the misconceptions that my colleagues may have regarding the bill the Senate is considering this week.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I apologize that I have taken so long, but I wanted to clear up some of these misconceptions about the CHIP bill that have been stated on the floor by some of my colleagues. I know they are very sincere, and I know they want to be fiscally responsible. But to argue that $12 billion a year or $60 billion over 5 years is too much money to pay for our children--when we are spending $2 trillion on health care--I think that makes our point, the distinguished Senator from Montana and I have been trying to make, even more resilient and effective.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Dr. Guy Clifton, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the CHIP reauthorization bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor of the thousands of firefighters who, in recent weeks, have literally put themselves in the line of fire to protect our communities and rural economies from countless wildfires throughout the western United States.

For the second year in a row, western States have been plagued by continuous wildfires that far exceed those of average years. While July and August are typically considered the peak months for western wildfires, this year's fire season has been exacerbated by continued drought, record-high temperatures, widespread dry lightning storms, and high winds. As of July 23, more than 55,000 wildfires had been reported this year, burning over 4 million acres. That represents an increase of more than 8,000 fires and 1 million acres over the 10-year average.

My home State of Utah alone has reported nearly 700 separate wildfires that have burned nearly 700,000 acres. This includes the fire at the Milford Flats Complex, which burned more than 360,000 acres, easily making it Utah's largest wildfire on record and one of the largest of this year's fire season. Idaho is the only State that has been hit harder than Utah this fire season, reporting more than 700 fires that have burned more than 800,000 acres.

Utah and Idaho have not been alone in this recent spike of wildfire activity. The Milford Flats fire was ignited during a 3-day period that lasted from July 6th through July 8th, at time period in which more than 1,200 wildfires were ignited in the West as dry lighting storms swept across California, Nevada, Utah, and Southern Idaho. Despite these drastic conditions, Federal, State and local fire crews have been relentless in their efforts to control these wildfires, literally putting themselves between these infernos and our homes, our, communities, and our resources.

I also want to express my heartfelt sympathies towards the hundreds of communities and thousands of families affected by this year's fires. Our thoughts and prayers are with them as they begin the difficult task of cleaning up and returning their lives to normal.

At any given time, as many as 15,000 fire personnel are assigned to large, uncontained wildfires throughout the West. This year, and every year, these brave men and women overcome extremely volatile weather conditions and terrain to contain nearly 98 percent of all wildfires during their initial attack. That is why I am introducing a Senate Resolution recognizing the heroic efforts of firefighters to contain these dangerous fires in the West. Senators Bennett, Ensign, Wyden, Domenici, Kyl, Barasso, Salazar, Craig, and Cantwell have joined me in cosponsoring this resolution. Clearly, this Senate Resolution already has strong bipartisan support, and I urge my remaining colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. President, I first wish to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the distinguished ranking

member and Senator Rockefeller, Senator Snowe--so many people--Senator Kennedy, others on the committee, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, folks on our side who have really stood up on this issue, the CHIP issue, Senator Snowe in particular, Senator Smith--I could go right on down the line--Senator Roberts who has been a stalwart. I don't want to leave anybody out.

This has been the result of tremendous negotiations over a long period of time, meeting virtually every day, led by the distinguished chairman of the committee. We have lots of issues, lots of difficulties, lots of past experience, mistakes that were made by the administration that have caused us a lot of problems, and yet a desire on the part of virtually everybody to try and do what is right for our children who basically are not being helped by our current health care system.

As we know, the CHIP bill works remarkably well. Hardly anybody I know has found fault with the way it has operated. The big problem is that we spent $40 billion over the 10-year authorization of CHIP, from 1997 to today, and it expires this September. But the costs of trying to bring on the additional kids who qualify to this program and the extra costs that have been caused by the administration issuing waivers, which has resulted in at least one or two States having more adults on the program than children, has caused some difficulties. We think we have resolved some of those problems, and we hope the vast majority of Senators will recognize that and vote for this bill.

We know the House bill is going to be off-the-charts expensive. Frankly, this is the bill people ought to look at, they ought to support, and I believe we ought to support wholeheartedly because we are trying to help the children of this country who are the least likely to be helped because they do not vote.

The CHIP bill has helped millions of children, there is no question about it. It was originally decided to help the children of the working poor who were the only kids left out of the process. The poor children were helped by Medicaid, and, of course, those in the middle class or above were able to afford their own health insurance. But these kids were left out of the program and, of course, left out of basic health care. We have been able to resolve many of those difficulties through the original CHIP program. In this program, we will do away with waivers. We can't do away with some of the grandfathered people who are on CHIP right now, but we will get childless adults out of the program, and we will bring into the program pregnant women, which we did not do before.

When we did the original CHIP bill, I was against bringing them in because of the high cost of the bill at that time. That bill cost $40 billion over 10 years. This bill will cost $60 billion over 5. But the reason for the original cost happened to be not only inflation, but also the outreach programs that were included, and the fact that we weren't covering upwards of 3 million children. Some estimate even more under the original CHIP program.

My personal belief is, if we cover these children properly, we will save billions of dollars in the long run. We will save more than what it costs us to take care of these kids. But even if we didn't, we still ought to be taking care of these children who basically are not problems to society but can be great contributors to society if they are healthy. If we don't take care of them while they are in their youth, it is very likely they will not be as healthy as they otherwise would be and, in the end, they would cost more money than if we had faced the music and done what is right now. That is why this CHIP bill is so important.

Again, I want to compliment and thank all of those who have participated in bringing this bill about.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Lott wants to speak at 4:30. I have another set of remarks I would like to make. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in another place in the Record and the time be charged against our amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico; that then I be able to complete my remarks on CHIP after he is done.

Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his remarks. I personally appreciate them.

Madam President, this week the Senate will focus on how to reauthorize and finance the CHIP program.

Therefore, I would like to take some time on the Senate floor today to lay the groundwork for that process by examining the history of the CHIP program and the successes it has had over the last decade.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997--BBA 97--created CHIP as Title XXI of

the Social Security Act. Today, all 50 States, the District of Columbia and five territories have CHIP programs. As is allowed by the law, 17 States use Medicaid expansions, 18 States use separate State programs and 21 States use a combination approach of both their Medicaid program and the State program.

The CHIP program is financed through both the federal and State governments and is overseen by the States. States receive an enhanced federal match for the CHIP program. This federal match is significantly higher than the federal match that States receive through the Medicaid program.

The Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage, known as F-MAP, ranges between 50 percent and 76 percent in fiscal year 2006; the CHIP F-MAP ranges from 65 percent to 83.2 percent.

Through BBA 97, approximately $40 billion in federal funding was appropriated for the CHIP program. Overall, States have spent $10.1 billion dollars since it was first implemented through September 30, 2005.

Today, approximately 6.2 million children have their health insurance coverage through the CHIP program. As one of the original authors of the CHIP program with Senator Kennedy, Senator Rockefeller, and the late Senator Chafee, I am very proud of the program's successes and I want these successes to continue.

When we drafted this legislation in 1997, our goal was to cover the several million children who had no insurance coverage. Their families were too rich to qualify for Medicaid; however, their families did not have enough money to purchase private health insurance. We have gone a long way in meeting that goal, but we are clearly not there yet. Coverage of these uninsured children is still my top priority.

I have always believed that we shouldn't even consider expanding this program to other populations until we have covered all children who do not have health care coverage.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case and a program that was created for low-income children has covered childless adults, parents of CHIP-eligible children and pregnant women. How has this happened?

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations granted waivers to States to cover adults, something that I strongly oppose. Today, 11 States cover parents through State waivers and six States cover childless adults in CHIP through State CHIP waivers.

When Senator Rockefeller, Senator Kennedy, Senator Chafee and I worked on the original legislation in 1997, our goal was to cover the several million children who had no health insurance, but I believe that the bill before the Senate today makes great progress in this area.

I believe the bill the Senate is considering this week captures the true essence of the 1997 law and builds on that foundation to insure even more children.

That, indeed, should be our purpose.

The bill drafted by Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Finance Ranking Republican Member Grassley, Finance Health Subcommittee Chairman Rockefeller and myself is the very essence of compromise.

To be fair, it does not make any of us Republicans comfortable to face a veto threat from our President.

It does not make me comfortable to face a veto threat issued by my colleague and good friend from Utah, Secretary Leavitt.

It does not make me comfortable to advocate for such a large amount in new spending.

At the same time, I know none of you on the other side of the aisle are comfortable with the fact that we did not authorize spending up to the $50 billion limit in the budget resolution. Many of my Democrat colleagues made sacrifices in endorsing this bill and in sacrificing program expansions they so dearly advocated.

Senator Kennedy and I often like to joke with each other that if neither side is totally comfortable with one of our compromises, we must have done a good job.

And in that spirit, I say to my colleagues, we must have done a good job.

This bill will make it all about the kids. That was our goal, and we achieved it. Our bill will provide health coverage to 2.7 million of the 6 million currently uninsured, low-income children who are 200 percent of the Federal poverty level and below.

I want to circle back to the cost of this bill.

I remember so well my conversations with my colleagues in 1997 about the cost of the original CHIP bill and the precedent it could represent.

We must recognize that we have already covered the kids who are easy to find. Six million of them to be exact.

We can all be proud of that.

But one of the lessons we have learned along the way is that it will cost proportionately more to cover the remaining children. They are harder to find and thus harder to cover.

This is what CBO told us.

So you can't do the simple math and say:

It costs $40 billion to cover 6 million kids, so it should

cost $40 billion to cover the remaining 6 million kids. It

doesn't work that way.

CBO told us that we need to give States more money to cover these new uninsured children, and that is what we have done.

We have made a number of other important decisions in this bill.

We have restored the program back to its intent to cover children, not adults. This was a hard decision for Senators from States with adult waivers, and I commend them for their commitment to the children.

The legislation before the committee removes childless adults from the CHIP program by the end of FY09 and afterwards, gives the States the option of covering these individuals through Medicaid.

It also prohibits the approval of any new State waivers for parents to be covered through CHIP.

Only parents living in states with approved parent waivers will be eligible for health coverage through the CHIP program.

The next tough issue was the coverage of pregnant women. While I was not opposed to this in theory, in practice we all know that the cost of one delivery could fund insurance for three or four children. That is why I opposed this coverage in 1997.

I have been convinced that States should have the option of covering pregnant women through the CHIP program. This was a difficult decision for me and, again, a true compromise.

Third, we included money for outreach and enrollment. This is key for enrollment, but as we found out, it is very expensive. So we made the decision to place a limit on the amount of money dedicated to these efforts.

Fourth, our legislation includes premium assistance through CHIP for coverage through private plans. And if it is determined that family coverage would be more cost efficient, the entire family would be covered through this health plan.

This is something that was very important to me and Senator Grassley. Utah has started such a program with the hopes of providing affordable coverage to an entire family.

Fifth, our legislation includes a cap of 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for eligibility in CHIP. If a State provides CHIP coverage above that level, it will not receive the enhanced match. States with higher eligibility levels when this legislation becomes law would be grandfathered in.

Finally, I am pleased that this bill changes the name SCHIP back to CHIP, the way it was before the House added the superfluous S.

Madam President, this is a good bill. It accomplishes what we have set out to do--to take care of the children.

Yes, I wish it did not cost what it does, but I am persuaded this is necessary spending when I think of the 6 million American children who are leading healthier lives because of our vision and commitment.

We should not let the opportunity pass us buy to build on that solid foundation and do even more good for the children, our future.

I will add one more point that I want my Republican colleagues to take to heart. This is a bipartisan compromise bill. It is not like the legislation being considered by the House of Representatives that will cost up to an additional $50 billion to reauthorize the CHIP program over the next 5 years.

In my opinion, the Senate version of this legislation is the better deal for the American people, and it is my hope that my colleagues who disagree will take one more look at this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to this bill.

I hope in the final analysis, once we do proceed, our colleagues will vote for the bill because it is the right thing to do.

How much time do we have remaining on both sides?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The evaluations, hearings, and investigations are complete.

The American Bar Association's highest rating is in.

It is time for this body, the United States Senate, to decide whether to consent to this judicial nomination by voting up or down. That is our role and we should assert it rather than avoid it.

Vote yes or vote no, but it is time for this body to do its duty and vote on the Southwick nomination.

This Senator will proudly vote to confirm this excellent nominee.

Before looking specifically at the Southwick nomination, I must respond to some recent remarks made by my Democratic colleagues concerning the confirmation process.

Three of their claims require a response.

First, Democrats have said that the three appeals court nominees confirmed so far this year are ``three more than were confirmed in this similar year in the last Clinton term.''

That is a factual claim and it is either true or false.

An evaluation of this claim is simple:

We are in the third year of President Bush's second term and the Senate is controlled by the other party.

The third year of President Clinton's second term was 1999, when the Senate also was controlled by the other party.

Democrats, therefore, are claiming that the Senate confirmed no appeals court nominees in 1999.

That allegation is patently false.

In fact, and this is obviously a matter of public record, the Senate confirmed seven appeals court nominees in 1999, more than twice as many as the Senate has confirmed so far this year.

Now, to give my Democratic colleagues the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they intended to refer to a different year during the last Clinton term.

If so, the evaluation is the same with the same conclusion that their claim is patently false.

The Senate confirmed seven appeals court nominees in 1997, 13 in 1998, seven in 1999, and eight in 2000, a presidential election year.

That is an average of nine per year and seventeen per Congress.

It was my Democratic colleagues who used appeals court confirmations in President Clinton's second term as a benchmark for appeals court confirmations in President Bush's second term.

By my Democratic colleagues' own standard, they will have to pick up the appeals court confirmation pace to match what Republicans did during President Clinton's second term.

The second thing Democrats have claimed is that the judicial vacancy rate is at an all-time low.

Once again, that claim is false.

The judicial vacancy rate has been increasing each year since before President Bush's re-election.

Average vacancies this year are 35 percent higher than in 2004, and average district court vacancies are 62 percent higher.

I do not know where my colleagues get their information, but the judicial vacancy rate is on the way up, not at an all-time low.

The third Democratic claim is that the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee did not give hearings to 70 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. This, they say, was a sign of great disrespect.

This is the judicial confirmation equivalent of an urban legend but, like other urban legends, constant repetition does not make it any more true.

We may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.

Not only does this claim, right off the bat, overstate the total by more than 20 percent but, more importantly, it ignores the fact that some judicial nominees do not receive hearings for a variety of perfectly legitimate and obvious reasons.

My Democratic colleagues, of course, know this but also know that most Americans will not know the difference and many in the media will not bother to sort it out.

President Clinton, for example, withdrew a dozen of his own nominees for various reasons, some involving significant and even embarrassing controversy. Was it disrespectful not to hold a hearing on nominees the President had withdrawn?

President Clinton submitted other nominees too late in a Congressional session to permit proper evaluation. Was it a sign of great disrespect not to give a hearing to a nominee not yet ready for a hearing?

Other nominees did not receive hearings because they were opposed by their home-State Senators, a tradition of Senatorial courtesy dating well back into the last century. Are my Democratic colleagues arguing that respecting the wishes of home-State Senators, including some of them, was being disrespectful to the nominees?

There are even more reasons, but eliminating these three alone-- Presidential withdrawals, late nominations, and home-State Senator opposition--raises the Democratic margin of error to more than 100 percent.

The Southwick nomination has none of the problems I just mentioned that prevented confirmation of some Clinton judicial nominees.

President Bush has obviously not withdrawn the nomination. He submitted this nomination on January 9, 2007, when the current 110th Congress convened, so there has been more than enough time for evaluation and confirmation.

In fact, last year the Judiciary Committee thoroughly vetted Judge Southwick when he was initially nominated to the U.S. District Court.

We looked at the same man with the same character, the same qualifications, and the same record. And we sent the nomination to the full Senate without any opposition, including from any of my Democratic colleagues who today are suddenly raising such a ruckus.

To be fair, in the name of full disclosure, I must candidly admit that two important things have changed since last fall, when the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Judge Southwick's nomination.

First, Judge Southwick has been nominated to the appeals court rather than to the district court.

Second, the American Bar Association has rated Judge Southwick higher for his appointment to the appeals court than they did for his appointment to the district court.

It makes no sense to me, but I suppose someone somewhere might think that a higher rating justifies more opposition.

The higher rating means Judge Southwick gets even higher marks from the ABA for his compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice.

If someone can explain how that makes him less qualified for the Federal bench, I would like to hear it.

Unlike Clinton nominees who did not receive hearings, Judge Southwick has the strong support of both of his home-State Senators.

The Senators from Mississippi, Senators Cochran and Lott, are senior and highly respected members of this body. Their support ought to mean something.

I have no doubt that if these two fine Senators objected to Judge Southwick receiving a hearing or an up or down vote, the Democrats who run this body would give them the respect they deserve and there would be no vote.

It seems, however, that today this traditional courtesy to esteemed home-State Senators is on its way to becoming a one-way street.

Both Mississippi Senators have been working with President Bush to fill this same seat for more than 5 years, and I think they deserve our respect and support just like we would seek theirs if the situation were reversed.

In the last few years of the Clinton administration, a Republican Senate confirmed a string of highly controversial appeals court nominees who nonetheless had the backing of their home-State Senators.

I supported them and today I urge my colleagues to do the same for our colleagues from Mississippi and for Judge Southwick.

When I came before this body a month ago, I explained why the tactics being used against Judge Southwick and other judicial nominees are illegitimate.

It is illegitimate to focus only on a few of the thousands of decisions in which Judge Southwick participated while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

It is illegitimate to ignore the facts and the law of those few cases.

It is illegitimate to ignore the standard of review that Judge Southwick had to follow as an appeals court judge.

It is illegitimate to look only at the political interests served by the results of those few cases.

It is illegitimate to create a distorted, twisted caricature of this nominee, a caricature that is simply unrecognizable by those who know him best and have worked with him most.

These are some of the illegitimate tactics being used against this fine nominee. I have a hard time believing that any of my colleagues would endorse these tactics or, worse yet, be persuaded by them.

As I said, the entire case against this highly qualified nominee rests on just two of the 7,000 cases in which he participated, each involving an opinion which he did not write.

If saying that is not enough to reject this empty case against Judge Southwick's confirmation, I fear for the confirmation process and this body's role in judicial appointments.

But let me take a minute and look at these two lone decisions that supposedly justify this tirade, this assault, this hatchet job against Judge Southwick.

The first is titled Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Resources.

Last week, one of my Democratic colleagues said that this one lone decision creates a perception that Judge

Southwick will be not be fair in civil rights cases as well as in cases about what he called the rights of ordinary people.

I agree with the distinguished Judiciary Committee Ranking Minority Member, Senator Specter, who has said that this body should evaluate judicial nominees based on facts, not perceptions.

Perceptions, after all, can be created with one press release, sound bite, letter, interview, or floor speech. If all it takes to justify opposition is such a deliberately invented perception, a politically motivated innuendo is all it would takes to defeat a nominee and destroy a good man's reputation.

That is wrong, and is another sign that this judicial confirmation process is steadily degrading.

In the Richmond case, a State employee used a racial slur one time. The person to whom it was directed did not hear it and later accepted an offered apology. The State review board concluded that these circumstances did not require terminating the employee.

To hear the critics describe it, the issue on review before the Mississippi Court of Appeals was whether racial slurs are good or bad, whether racial slurs ought to be tolerated in the workplace.

To hear the critics describe it, the appeals court looked at this case from scratch, had all options open, and could have done anything it wanted.

The critics know that is not true, but they also know that most people will not know the difference.

Apparently, the political or partisan goal of attacking Judge Southwick justifies misleading people about what judges do in general, and about this case in particular.

The Mississippi Court of Appeals, on which Judge Southwick sat, was limited to reviewing this decision under a specific, narrow standard called the arbitrary and capricious standard.

The appeals court was required to affirm the review board's decision if there was any evidence to support it. That is a very deferential standard, and a judge's personal opinion is not enough to overcome it.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with Judge Southwick's court that the facts of this case did not require that the employee be terminated.

Let me make this very clear.

Judge Southwick's critics are not addressing what the court actually did in this case. They are attacking Judge Southwick because his court did not reach a decision it had no authority to reach. No matter what your personal feelings about the issue in the case, that is the wrong standard.

It is wrong to suggest that judges are not fair to parties simply because they rule against them.

It is wrong to suggest that judges should prefer politically correct results over legally correct results.

Judges do not exist to opine on social problems or address social trends, they exist to decide legal cases.

Judges do not exist to serve political interests or pursue policy agendas, they exist to settle legal disputes.

Judge Southwick apparently understands this much better than his critics. Properly understanding that judges must follow the law rather than their personal opinions is precisely why Judge Southwick should be confirmed.

Some have said that this decision shows Judge Southwick has hostile views on race.

It does not show his views on that issue one way or another.

But if any question remained about Judge Southwick's personal views, in his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee--a more appropriate setting in which to do it--Judge Southwick made his views perfectly clear. He said that this particular slur is always offensive and inherently derogatory.

If some of my colleagues believe judges should ignore the law and decide cases based on personal views, they should say so.

If some of my colleagues believe judges should decide which side is going to win before a case even starts, they should say so.

If some of my colleagues really believe that litigants will get a fairer shake before judges who decide cases by personal opinions rather than the law, they should explain such a wrong-headed idea.

America's founders did not believe that, I do not believe that, and I think most Americans do not believe that.

The other case with which Judge Southwick's critics would indict him is titled S.B. v. L.W.

In this custody case, all of the relevant factors such as employment, income, home ownership, and community roots, weighted in favor of the father.

State statutes and State judicial precedents at the time also favored the heterosexual father over the bisexual mother.

The court's job was to review these factors, and the court upheld the decision to give custody to the father. That is what the law required, so that is what the court did.

So what is it about this decision that Judge Southwick's critics offer as the basis to oppose him? That an opinion he joined but did not write used the phrase ``homosexual lifestyle.''

I can accept that some people see this as a negative phrase.

But others might see it simply as a factual phrase.

The Mississippi Supreme Court used this phrase in the line of cases that Judge Southwick's court had to follow in its decision.

The phrase has been used in hundreds of court decisions, on both the State and federal level, all across this country. This includes the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which Judge Southwick's critics no doubt would applaud.

It is hardly a stretch to see that this phrase is relevant in a custody case where applicable law makes lifestyle patterns and home life decisions important.

This, I say to my colleagues, is the case against Judge Southwick: two decisions, two opinions he did not write, with results some people do not like but which followed applicable law and stuck to the job the appeals court had to do.

That so-called case against Judge Southwick is less than unpersuasive, it is no case at all.

Before I close, I want to repeat a point I made the last time I addressed this body about this excellent nominee.

In their letter opposing Judge Southwick, the Congressional Black Caucus said that we ``should be impressed by the frequency with which Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled.''

That is the standard the Congressional Black Caucus recommends that we apply to this nomination.

Judge Southwick authored 927 opinions and concurrences while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

Only 21 of those 927 opinions and concurrences, or just 2.3 percent, have been either reversed or even criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 12 years.

As the Congressional Black Caucus said I should be, I am indeed impressed by the frequency with which Judge Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled. A reversal rate so low is a sign that he is a balanced jurist whose work is highly respected and holds up under scrutiny.

This is yet another reason why this excellent nominee should be confirmed.

Mr. President, the majority of Americans who disapprove of our job performance has been growing all year, from 56 percent in March and April to nearly 65 percent today.

A record low of 14 percent of Americans have confidence in Congress.

Perhaps, just perhaps, illegitimate tactics and unfair treatment of good people and outstanding nominees such as Judge Southwick contribute to this dismal picture.

I hope that changes, not only for the nominees but also for the vitality and integrity of this institution.

The Southwick nomination is ready for the Senate to decide whether to give its consent by voting up or down.

The background checks are done.

The ABA's highest rating is in.

The questionnaire is complete.

The hearings have been conducted.

The distinguished home-State Senators have given this nominee their strongest endorsement.

None of the factors that stopped, held up, or slowed down past nominees exist in this case.

There are no reasons or excuses for further delay.

The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate should promptly approve this excellent nominee.

I yield the floor.