Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am heading home for town meetings this weekend. There is no question that the dominant subject is going to be all the economic hurt we are certainly seeing in Oregon and across the country. People are concerned about their gas bills and their food bills and medical bills.

Yesterday, Senator Grassley and I, in an effort to look at a fresh approach to holding down gas bills, released what we call a discussion draft, in an effort to solicit ideas and input from people who have expertise on this subject, about how we might change the tax laws so as to not encourage speculation in the oil business.

The current Tax Code gives speculators tax incentives to bid up the price of oil. Essentially, the current tax law distorts our markets. It favors one set of buyers and sellers over another. Senator Grassley and I are going to be seeking ideas and suggestions over the month-long August recess in the hope that in the fall, when the Senate reconvenes, Democrats and Republicans can come together on a bipartisan basis and come up with more sensible tax policies, so we don't have a tax system that, in effect, creates incentives to drive up the price of gasoline.

We have put out this proposal, and it is on my Web site. Again, we call it a discussion draft. It is, in fact, just that--a way to gather ideas and input and make sure people have a chance to be heard.

On another economic hot button issue that is burning a hole in the pockets of our people, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about health care. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is that we pay for so much inefficiency in our health care system. This year, we are going to spend about $2.3 trillion on American health care. Dr. Peter Orszag, the head of the CBO, estimates that about $700 billion of that $2.3 trillion is essentially spent on health care of little or no value. So we

have to find ways to root out some of this inefficient health care spending if we are going to hold the costs down.

Yesterday, a very remarkable hearing was held in the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve. Senator Baucus, chairman of the committee, to his credit, made it clear that he is going to dig into these big issues. It is clear, once again, that the Tax Code, as it relates to health care, is clearly driving up the cost for American families and for our people. In effect, the Tax Code encourages inefficient expenditures in American health. We have writeoffs for employers. We have breaks for individuals but they are not shared by all. The $250 billion that is spent through these tax rules disproportionally goes to the most affluent in our society, rather than the people who need it the most.

If you live, for example, in a small town in Ohio or a small town in Oregon, here is the way it works with the Tax Code: If you are well-off and you have a fancy health care plan, you can tuck a whole lot of your compensation into that health plan tax-free. So in a town in Ohio or Oregon, if you are going to buy a pair of designer eyeglasses or get a designer smile, you can write off the cost of those Cadillac benefits. But if you are somebody in a small Oregon town or in Ohio who has no health care, you don't get those writeoffs.

It is unfair. It encourages inefficiency because the typical worker is in the dark about their health care. Even if they have a plan, most of the time they don't have the choice. Most individuals don't have a chance to hold down their health care costs the way we do as Members of Congress. As Members of Congress, we get to choose between a host of private plans. If you are lucky enough to have some employer coverage in our country, you hardly ever have a choice, No. 1, and, No. 2, if your money is being spent inefficiently, there isn't anything you can do about it as an individual. In fact, most people don't even realize the reason their take-home pay doesn't go up is because all of their potential increase in take-home pay when they are more productive seems to go to health care. In fact, Dr. Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office has said there is so much inefficiency in the health care system that nothing much is going to change until people realize they are losing out on take-home pay because their take-home pay goes to pay for their health care.

What we have said as a group in the Senate--eight Democratic Senators and eight Republican Senators--is we want to change this system that is so profoundly unfair to working people and also rewards inefficiency. What we have proposed in our legislation--the Healthy Americans Act--is to take away the Federal tax subsidies for the Cadillac health care plans and use that money instead so every family in America can get a progressive deduction of $15,000 annually to buy their health care.

It is our view that this amounts to a trifecta. Health care would be fairer because we would have taken away those Cadillac tax breaks and given them to the middle-class folks who are having difficulty affording their health care. It would be more efficient because people would have choices of their private health coverage and have new incentives to make purchases carefully. And there would be a progressive way to finance extending coverage for more of our people.

I have watched with great interest the effort in Pennsylvania where wonderful people, such as Governor Rendell and committed State legislators, have been trying to expand coverage. One of the reasons it is hard to do at the State level is there is no progressive way to finance some of the extra coverage for people who are uninsured or underinsured.

We have found that progressive financing in the Healthy Americans Act because we take away the tax breaks for those Cadillac plans used for designer eyeglasses or new smiles, or whatever, and we move that money to hard working families in Oregon and Pennsylvania and Ohio for expanded coverage.

Our approach, as was noted by the head of the Joint Committee on Taxation, would give 80 percent of the American people a tax cut. A typical family spends about $12,000 buying their private health insurance, if they can afford it. We would give a tax cut to 80 percent of the American people with our approach.

The Senator from Pennsylvania and I sat in on a very good meeting yesterday describing some of the questions that accompany making change on big economic issues. People want to know how do you make sure it is not so confusing and your family doesn't get lost in red tape. For example, in health care, people want to know: If I like what I have, can I keep it? I like the idea of looking at alternatives, but if I have a plan and I like it and my employer wants to continue to offer it, can I do it?

What we said in the Healthy Americans Act, sponsored by 16 of us in the Senate, was absolutely. If you want to keep what you have and your employer wants to keep offering it, so be it. But if your employer wants more choices and if you as a worker want more choices, we also provide that kind of opportunity. That is why I have said our proposal operates very much like what all of us--the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Ohio, and myself--have in the Congress. There is a period of time when we get to choose between the various private insurance policies. The insurers cannot cream skim. They cannot cherry pick and take only healthy people and send everybody who has a health problem somewhere else. We do that in the Healthy Americans Act. With our approach, we can get a lot more for our health care dollar. A lot of people in this country, say if they work for a small employer where they do not have much bargaining power or they are out on their own, cannot get that today.

We set this up so it looks, in terms of its operations, pretty much like the way it works for us as Members of Congress in terms of making our private choices. There are places you can call for help in choosing a plan. And giving everyone these kinds of private choices injects competition and new opportunities to hold down costs into the system.

The issue we talked about yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee, the Federal tax rules, I would guess there is probably not 1 out of 100 people in the United States who knows much about this. But this is one of the biggest programs run by the Federal Government. It comes to about $250 billion a year. And to have the money go out the door in a way that so wildly favors the most fortunate and encourages inefficiency at the same time strikes me as bizarre.

Yesterday, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, conversation was started about a topic that I think is essential to this issue of fixing American health care. If we do it right, there is the opportunity for expanding coverage in a progressive way so that the next time, for example, the Pennsylvania legislature wrestles with this issue--this issue that Governor Rendell and Pennsylvania legislators tackled this last year and could not pass legislation on--they would be able to say some changes were made in Federal policy so as to fund in a progressive way some of the changes that need to be made.

There is no question this needs to be done in a careful and deliberate way. We are talking about changing something that started in the 1940s. In the 1940s, it probably made a lot of sense. We were not dealing with a global economy, and people would go to work in Oregon or Pennsylvania at a young age and stay put until you gave them a gold watch and a retirement dinner. The typical worker today changes their job 11 times by the time they are in their early forties. So they need a portable health plan they can take from place to place. We have done that in the Healthy Americans Act as well.

Chairman Baucus made a very important point in terms of making sure this is explained to people in a more simple and straightforward way than it has been in the past, certainly than as it was explained in 1993. Then fundamentally it has to be a commitment the Congress makes to our people to say: If you like what you have and employers want to keep offering it, they can do it. I hope they will. But nearly 7 percent of the employers have gotten out of the health business altogether in the last few years and thousands more have heaped on the copayments and the deductibles in the last few years.

We need to have more choices, and 16 Members of the Senate are working toward this goal. This is the first time in the history of this debate, in 60 years of the Senate debating this issue, there has ever been a piece of legislation where a large number of Democrats and Republicans have come together. Senator Bennett in particular, the Senator from Utah, a member of the Republican leadership, deserves enormous credit for his efforts to help find common ground.

Now we have a chance for the debate as we go into September, with Chairman Baucus holding additional hearings in September, and all our colleagues being home and folks asking: What is going to be done about health care? We have a chance now to start that discussion about what it is going to take to fix American health care.

I submit that when people talk about their bills, they are talking about their gas bill, they are talking about their food bill, they are talking about their medical bill, and that medical bill is pumped up-- that is the only way you can characterize it--by $700 billion worth of spending that is inefficient and is of little or no value. The Federal Tax Code, as we heard from three of the experts yesterday, props up all that inefficiency. So reforming those Federal tax rules, as we seek to do in the Healthy Americans Act, is a key part of the solution.

I thank Chairman Baucus for his leadership for being willing to tackle an issue that lots of people, frankly, have ducked in past years. And I submit that finding a bipartisan solution to these outdated, unfair tax rules--rules that show how broken the health care system is--is a key to holding down the costs that people are so upset about and assure that we attain our goal, which is all Americans have high-quality affordable health care.

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

Mr. President, over the past 7 years, hundreds of thousands of members of our armed forces have gone to war and returned home alive, but suffering. Advances in protective equipment and improvements made in battlefield care mean that fewer troops than ever before suffer from obvious physical wounds. But many more of these service members have returned with less obvious injuries--invisible injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.

Our armed forces have seen a surge in diagnosed cases of post- traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, commonly known as PTSD and TBI. And soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves are much more likely to suffer from PTSD and depression when they return from battle, a fact that is very important in Oregon where almost all of our servicemembers serve in the Guard and Reserves.

While no less real and no less serious than physical wounds of war, PTSD and TBI require a specialized kind of diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately, only half of the soldiers and veterans who suffer from PTSD or TBI are receiving care for their wounds, according to a RAND Corporation study.

To help our service men and women suffering from PTSD, TBI and other mental health conditions, we are introducing a bill today that's designed to address some of the overwhelming difficulties faced by many of our nation's warriors. This bill, the ``Healing Our Nation's Heroes Act of 2008,'' has within it provisions to help improve mental health care, and access to care, for service members who suffer from the invisible wounds of war.

First, this legislation would create a standing commission to study and oversee mental health treatment of our veterans. This commission would make recommendations on methods to improve mental health care and, just as importantly, overcome the cultural stigma attached to seeking help for mental health disorders. As an ongoing body, this commission will continue to help guide Congress and the agencies for years, instead of just making recommendations and disappearing.

Secondly, the bill would create a ``Heroes-to-Healers Program'' which would provide financial incentives for veterans and members of the armed forces who are separating or retiring to obtain certification or licensing as mental health providers. It also encourages them to seek employment with organizations that provide mental health care to members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.

One of the more heartbreaking truths surrounding PTSD is that service members are often reluctant to seek help from mental health professionals who don't share their experiences. This reluctance creates the sort of self-isolation that leads to increased risk of suicide.

By increasing the number of veterans working as mental health providers, this bill will allow more servicemembers and veterans to get treatment from those who truly understand what combat is like.

Our bill would also create a grant program to help state and local mental health agencies recruit and retain mental health professionals. Some service members and veterans don't feel comfortable seeking mental health care from the Department of Defense or VA. But mental health agencies are already being stretched thin, especially in rural areas. This legislation will provide help in recruiting and retaining the mental health providers our wounded heroes so desperately need.

Surviving the trauma of combat shouldn't sentence our forces to a lifetime of mental and emotional pain. They paid the price bravely for serving our country in battle. This bill will help them move beyond the invisible scars of the battlefield and rebuild their lives at home.

Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleagues Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Dodd from Connecticut, am introducing the Protect Children From Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty lighters. Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items.

These lighters are dangerous and have terrible consequences. Because they are so well disguised as toys, novelty lighters have children literally playing with fire.

The results can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidentally started a serious fire. One boy died and the other now has permanent brain damage. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire.

Tragic accidents like these happen all over the country. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree

burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. One of the most tragic incidents occurred in Arkansas, where a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old child died in a fire they accidentally started playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle.

These injuries and deaths demand we take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.

If we don't protect children from novelty lighters, we are condemning them to play life-threatening Russian roulette every time they pick up what they think is a toy.

A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. Passing this bill is the only way we can guarantee that novelty lighters will be kept out of the hands of children. It's our best tool to prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families.

A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to take action to ban these deadly lighters. Maine and Tennessee passed novelty lighter ban legislation and similar bans are being introduced in many other states, including Oregon. We should expand and support these efforts to protect children in all states.

A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a Federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. Even the cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, supports a ban on novelty lighters. We also have support from the Congressional Fire Institute, Safe Kids USA, Consumer Federation of America and the Consumer's Union.

The more people learn about novelty lighters, the more support there is to ban them.

I urge my colleagues to act now and help kids across America avoid the senseless deaths and serious injuries they suffer when they mistake novelty lighters for toys.

Hazardous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are particularly attractive to children. Kids need our help to protect them from the treacherous ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' of novelty lighters.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act.

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

There being no objetion, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, over the past 7 years, hundreds of thousands of members of our armed forces have gone to war and returned home alive, but suffering. Advances in protective equipment and improvements made in battlefield care mean that fewer troops than ever before suffer from obvious physical wounds. But many more of these service members have returned with less obvious injuries--invisible injuries like post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.

Our armed forces have seen a surge in diagnosed cases of post- traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, commonly known as PTSD and TBI. And soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves are much more likely to suffer from PTSD and depression when they return from battle, a fact that is very important in Oregon where almost all of our servicemembers serve in the Guard and Reserves.

While no less real and no less serious than physical wounds of war, PTSD and TBI require a specialized kind of diagnosis and treatment. Unfortunately, only half of the soldiers and veterans who suffer from PTSD or TBI are receiving care for their wounds, according to a RAND Corporation study.

To help our service men and women suffering from PTSD, TBI and other mental health conditions, we are introducing a bill today that's designed to address some of the overwhelming difficulties faced by many of our nation's warriors. This bill, the ``Healing Our Nation's Heroes Act of 2008,'' has within it provisions to help improve mental health care, and access to care, for service members who suffer from the invisible wounds of war.

First, this legislation would create a standing commission to study and oversee mental health treatment of our veterans. This commission would make recommendations on methods to improve mental health care and, just as importantly, overcome the cultural stigma attached to seeking help for mental health disorders. As an ongoing body, this commission will continue to help guide Congress and the agencies for years, instead of just making recommendations and disappearing.

Secondly, the bill would create a ``Heroes-to-Healers Program'' which would provide financial incentives for veterans and members of the armed forces who are separating or retiring to obtain certification or licensing as mental health providers. It also encourages them to seek employment with organizations that provide mental health care to members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.

One of the more heartbreaking truths surrounding PTSD is that service members are often reluctant to seek help from mental health professionals who don't share their experiences. This reluctance creates the sort of self-isolation that leads to increased risk of suicide.

By increasing the number of veterans working as mental health providers, this bill will allow more servicemembers and veterans to get treatment from those who truly understand what combat is like.

Our bill would also create a grant program to help state and local mental health agencies recruit and retain mental health professionals. Some service members and veterans don't feel comfortable seeking mental health care from the Department of Defense or VA. But mental health agencies are already being stretched thin, especially in rural areas. This legislation will provide help in recruiting and retaining the mental health providers our wounded heroes so desperately need.

Surviving the trauma of combat shouldn't sentence our forces to a lifetime of mental and emotional pain. They paid the price bravely for serving our country in battle. This bill will help them move beyond the invisible scars of the battlefield and rebuild their lives at home.

Mr. President, today, I, along with my colleagues Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Dodd from Connecticut, am introducing the Protect Children From Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty lighters. Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household items.

These lighters are dangerous and have terrible consequences. Because they are so well disguised as toys, novelty lighters have children literally playing with fire.

The results can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and accidentally started a serious fire. One boy died and the other now has permanent brain damage. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on fire.

Tragic accidents like these happen all over the country. In North Carolina, a boy sustained second degree

burns after playing with a novelty lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. One of the most tragic incidents occurred in Arkansas, where a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old child died in a fire they accidentally started playing with a novelty lighter shaped like a toy motorcycle.

These injuries and deaths demand we take action and remove these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.

If we don't protect children from novelty lighters, we are condemning them to play life-threatening Russian roulette every time they pick up what they think is a toy.

A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance. That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold, or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. Passing this bill is the only way we can guarantee that novelty lighters will be kept out of the hands of children. It's our best tool to prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too many families.

A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to take action to ban these deadly lighters. Maine and Tennessee passed novelty lighter ban legislation and similar bans are being introduced in many other states, including Oregon. We should expand and support these efforts to protect children in all states.

A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread nationwide support. Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire Marshals supports a Federal ban on these lighters and has been active in promoting public awareness on this issue. Even the cigarette lighter industry, represented by the Lighter Association, supports a ban on novelty lighters. We also have support from the Congressional Fire Institute, Safe Kids USA, Consumer Federation of America and the Consumer's Union.

The more people learn about novelty lighters, the more support there is to ban them.

I urge my colleagues to act now and help kids across America avoid the senseless deaths and serious injuries they suffer when they mistake novelty lighters for toys.

Hazardous tools containing flammable fuel should not be dressed up in packages that are particularly attractive to children. Kids need our help to protect them from the treacherous ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' of novelty lighters.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Protect Children from Dangerous Lighters Act.

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

There being no objetion, the text of the bill was ordered to be

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on S. 3335, the tax extender package, for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, folks across our country feel as if they are drowning as wave after wave of bad economic news hits them.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation because at times like this, when so many people feel they are close to going under, they look to their Government to toss them a life preserver, not burden them with a 2-ton cement block of bills to pay and then wish them luck. Congress has shown a willingness to shore up Wall Street. This legislation gives us an opportunity to shore up the folks who are on Main Street.

People across our country want to see the Senate address the issues that are most important to them, and at the top of that list is energy. Obviously, our country is now at a crossroads. The country can continue to keep going on the road we are on, living on high-priced fuel and spewing carbon dioxide into the air from fossil fuels that choke the planet, or we can take a different road. With this legislation, we can start down that route.

This legislation put the country on a path toward real energy independence. It would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it would extend tax credits for renewable energy technologies--solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectricity, geothermal heat pumps, and fuel cells. These new energy choices will help stem the devastating effects of global warming.

On the other hand, the failure to extend existing renewable energy credits sends the wrong signals to renewable energy companies and investors. It will literally cut off the pipeline of promising renewable energy projects at a time when many of these technologies are just getting off the ground.

How often is it possible to point to legislation and say that this bill will actually lead to a more promising future? In this case, businesses, workers, consumers, and homeowners all have an opportunity to be part of a brighter energy future. Truckers would get an exemption from the highway excise tax so they could install fuel-saving anti- idling equipment. Consumers would get a new tax credit when they buy the plug-in hybrids. There would be a tax break for the bicycle commuters. For the first time, wave, tidal energy, and small wind turbines would be eligible for renewable energy tax credits. The bill also extends production tax credits for biodiesel. Consumers and businesses would be encouraged to live on less energy but in a fashion that does not compromise our economy or our quality of life. There would be tax credits for energy-efficient homes, commercial buildings, energy-efficient appliances, and also recycling equipment.

It is my view that the tax provisions of this legislation make sense for taxpayers and they make sense for the environment and our businesses, and in that sense, we have an opportunity to act for America's future. I hope this legislation will pass.

I would like to touch quickly on several other parts of the legislation that I think are particularly important, and especially the county payments legislation.

If you live in a big city in this country, you may not know a whole lot about this legislation, but the county payments program keeps rural communities throughout the country--particularly in my home State-- alive. The legislation includes more than $3.7 billion in funds that are desperately needed for rural schools, counties, and communities. Without the safety net funding included in the bill, rural communities across the country will face a future without schools and without vital services such as law enforcement and essential road repair. Pink slips have already been sent out to teachers and county workers, and unless the Congress acts quickly, these devastating losses to the very fabric of rural communities would become permanent.

There are counties in my home State that now literally face dissolution. Folks who live there don't know what to expect, but they are bracing for the worst. I am just not going to let that happen.

This energy tax package contains the last best hope to help these counties, and the Senate should not turn its back on rural America now.

Specifically, the package contains a 4-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program that I authored in 2000 and 5 years of full funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.

This proposal closely mirrors the legislative proposal I put together last year with Senators Baucus, Bingaman, and Majority Leader Reid--a proposal that overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 74 to 23. Senator Craig and Senator Domenici also helped with critical efforts to move the legislation forward and to give it strong, bipartisan support.

When folks in rural America are losing their jobs, their homes, and the chance to educate their kids, the Federal Government should not break its promise to rural communities. When Federal forests were created in Oregon and around the country, rural communities were promised they would get a share of the revenue from those forests. This revenue sharing was intended to make up for the loss of Federal forest land from the local tax base. As the benefits from forest management changes with the times, Congress can't walk away from its responsibility to provide funding to the counties for their contribution in creating the Nation's forests. Since that original effort, it has been clear that local communities needed some measure of support.

By providing funds through 2011, this bill gets our rural counties off the fiscal roller coaster they have been on, particularly during these difficult economic times. It gives them stable funding so they can concentrate on the real work of planning for the future. Nationally, this would mean $3.7 billion, and in my home State of Oregon, it would mean hundreds of millions of dollars for schools, public safety, roads, and other essential county services.

In the midst of an energy crisis, our schools face big challenges. An Energy Department study reported that schools spend about $8 billion on energy each year, second only to spending on books and computers. The same study estimated that 61 percent of public school districts had insufficient energy budgets. As a result, the schools--especially our rural schools--are forced to make difficult decisions about whether they can fully afford to heat or cool their buildings or whether they are going to have to cut some essential service, such as the school bus service in rural areas. Reauthorizing the county payments program would keep the lights on in the classrooms and make sure our youngsters have the basics they need in order to be able to learn.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 has worked. It has built collaboration between counties, forest product firms, and environmentalists in communities in over 700 counties in 41 States across the Nation. A key part of that collaboration has included funding projects to restore the national forests, and those would include providing renewable woody biomass that is part of the renewable energy solution this legislation would provide.

Finally, on this point, these funds are a critical lifeline to rural areas. I point out that rural schools and counties would not be the only ones who suffer if this bill isn't passed. But I want to highlight the county payments legislation tonight particularly.

I am going to be going home this weekend for townhall meetings in the rural part of my State. I will hear again and again this weekend how, without this program, without the essential program for rural communities that, in effect, built on something that started a century ago, we will see some of those rural communities dissolve before our eyes. I cannot allow that to happen on my watch.

Finally, a quick comment on one other section of the legislation. I see that my friend from Arizona is here, and I want him to know that I will wrap up very briefly.

Mr. President, with respect to the tax extenders provisions of this legislation, I can only say that businesses are calling for this. Typical taxpayers are calling for it. Teachers are saying they need it. Once again, we have to look at the consequences of not passing an important domestic initiative. This bill includes help for folks who are hurting right now. It includes help with relief to people in the Midwest who are still hurting from this year's floods. It helps businesses by renewing the business research and development tax credit. This is very important because our fast-growing technology companies say it is critical for their plans to grow and hire new staff. High-tech companies are some of the best employers in my home State and around the country, and they offer family-wage jobs that Americans can depend on.

Both parties agree that the research and development credit should be extended and that it will be--some day. That is what they say, Mr. President--some day. That doesn't do much good for struggling manufacturers now. They have to plan their investments in order to be able to grow. They say that R&D credits are critical to doing that. By holding it up, the Congress is pushing our companies to outsource the important work. Clearly, no Member of the Senate could want that to happen, but without these credits, we are not having the proper incentive to keep jobs in the United States. I want to see high-skill, high-wage jobs here in our communities. We are the world leaders in research and development, and it is moments like this that will either keep us in that position or will start us heading down the path of becoming followers.

I want to finally express my appreciation to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his fine work on this legislation. I particularly appreciate the many times in which he has assisted me with the Secure Rural Schools Program. A host of other colleagues: Leader Reid, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, among others. I also express my appreciation to Senator Tester, our new Senator from the State of Montana, who has been a champion of rural schools and this program as well for all of his assistance.

I urge the support of the critical Baucus legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Since my days of working with the Gray Panthers in Oregon, I have been aware of the special obligation that we have to both our younger and older citizens who are in need of long-term care services. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 was a watershed in efforts to make life safer and more dignified for individuals living in long-term care institutions.

Since 1987, the long-term care industry has continued to evolve in ways that require another look at the state of long-term care. In a constantly changing for-profit and nonprofit industry, Federal and State governments need better information about the organizations and staff who provide care to residents of long-term care. Individuals, families, and service providers also need good information about long- term care to make informed decisions about their options.

Chairman Kohl, I laud you and your colleagues who have thoughtfully identified current or emerging problems in long-term care. The Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008, S. 2641, makes important strides in helping us to get more substantive information about nursing home ownership and staffing. It strengthens the Nursing Home Compare Web site and provides additional information for the general public. I am therefore pleased to become a cosponsor of this legislation.

While I am pleased to support the legislation, I do have some concerns about the bill as it is written and hope that we can work together to make some changes to the bill. It has been helpful for me to talk about the bill with the many fine people who operate nursing homes in Oregon and others. And these folks have identified what I think are legitimate concerns with the bill.

There are two issues of particular concern where I hope we may be able to get agreement on modifications. First, the bill calls for increased civil monetary penalties and requires that they be placed in escrow in advance of adjudication of an alleged violation. This provision could be especially burdensome to smaller nursing homes that already operate close to the margin. I think it would be useful to review the size of the proposed fines but especially the escrow provision. Tying up thousands of dollars in escrow would be particularly difficult for small nursing homes and especially unfair for homes whose alleged violations were later found to be without merit. I also believe it raises due process concerns in terms of imposing penalties before a matter has been finally settled.

The other issue of concern in the legislation concerns the requirement that every nursing home that is part of a group of nursing homes with common ownership and annual revenues of $50 million or more be subject to annual audits. Many of the nursing homes in Oregon are family-run businesses. A few of our Oregon owners operate groups of nursing homes that would meet the criterion for annual audits of each of their nursing homes. I am concerned that the cost of annual audits would be financially burdensome for them and for small nursing home chain owners in other parts of the country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, this morning there was some remarkable testimony given by Dr. Peter Orszag, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, which, in my view, is going to set the bar for how this Congress contains skyrocketing health care costs. Dr. Orszag has zeroed in on the question of health care costs, as my friend from Colorado knows, saying that escalating health care costs are essentially the premier determiner of this country's fiscal condition. So when Dr. Orszag, in effect, lays out what it is going to take for America and the Congress to contain medical costs, it seems to me that is a real wake-up call for this body and for the country.

What Dr. Orszag did is to spell out the extent of the inefficiencies in American health care. We are going to spend this year about $2.3 trillion on medical care. Dr. Orszag has said that the system is now so riddled with inefficiency that perhaps $700 billion of that $2.3 trillion is going to be spent on care and services that is of relatively little value as it does not contribute toward improved health outcomes.

Given this enormous economic challenge for our country--and, in effect, economic insecurity to a great extent is determined by rising health costs and rising gasoline prices--I wanted to get to the bottom of what the Congressional Budget Office thinks is going to be necessary to contain medical costs. So what I asked Dr. Orszag, specifically, was about his sense of what it will take to bend the health cost curve downward. Dr. Orszag said, in response to my questions, that it is going to take two things:

First, it is going to be essential to demonstrate to our people very directly how much these inefficiencies cost them, for example, in their reduced take-home pay at work. Second, Dr. Orszag made it very clear that to contain cost and to wring out these inefficiencies, it is going to be necessary for the Congress to pass health reform legislation so that in a more efficient, more fair health care system our people will have a new financial incentive to select health care carefully.

The reason I say Dr. Orszag set the bar today for containing health costs is because it is clear there are a lot of ideas for how to go about this task. I know the Senator from Colorado is very interested in health information technology, for example--virtually all Senators are--and all those new approaches are going to be very important. But I asked Dr. Orszag was it the only way that you could contain costs, to take those two steps--one to make sure people see directly what they lose if we continue a system with all these inefficiencies; and, second, what happens if there are no new financial incentives--and Dr. Orszag said very specifically that to contain medical costs you need to take those two steps: demonstrate to people what they are losing and give them new incentives to hold down costs.

Now, I have been honored to be able to join with 16 Members of this body, 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans, around legislation that is built on the two principles that Dr. Orszag affirmed today are going to be essential to contain health care costs. We make sure everybody understands what the implications are for propping up all these inefficiencies in their wages, because for the first few years under our legislation we would stipulate that workers are entitled to the cash value of what their employer is now spending on health care. So with that requirement, we address what Dr. Orszag has said is essential--to demonstrate to workers what they lose out on with the status quo.

The second thing we do in our legislation, which tracks Dr. Orszag's plan to contain costs, is we make sure that in a new system--where insurers have to take all comers, where people are part of a large group so that they have bargaining power, where there are lower administrative costs because you use the tax system to sign up people, and there is uniform billing--we also give a cash reward to individuals for making more careful purchases of their health care.

For example: Under our legislation, if their employer has spent $15,000 on their particular health care, and the individual worker either chooses an employer's package or, say, another package, and the package they chose would cost $14,200, that individual worker has $800 in their pocket to go on a great fishing trip in Oregon or Colorado, where we have some of the best recreation in the country.

So in our legislation, by way of giving a reward to workers, a cash reward for a careful selection of their health care, we do what Dr. Orszag has recommended as the second approach for containing medical costs.

I made clear this morning--and I especially appreciate Chairman Baucus's leadership because these hearings are a follow-up to our Finance Committee summit--and Chairman Baucus has made it clear we are going to work in a bipartisan way. He and Senator Grassley, in my view, are sort of the example of how to work in a bipartisan fashion. I said this morning I think there are probably other approaches that ought to be examined in this whole discussion, but what we do know from this morning is that Dr. Orszag has said you have to have those two essentials to contain costs--workers understanding what they lose out of the current system and new financial incentives for making careful purchases.

That is why it seems to me that what Dr. Orszag did today was to set the bar; to, in effect, lay out a vision of what it is going to take to hold down medical costs. It seems to me, when we look at the double whammy our people are facing today--the combination of skyrocketing medical bills and getting clobbered at the gasoline pump--we see that those are the two areas where you need to take action.

Under the leadership of the Majority Leader, Senator Reid, we are going to go after those gas price hikes before the Congress breaks for the recess. I am pleased to be part of our caucus's efforts to work on this and pleased that we are reaching out across the aisle so, hopefully, there will be bipartisan support for our efforts to hold down gasoline price hikes. But I think we need to start laying out, as Dr. Orszag did today, the strategy for holding down medical costs.

I have been very fortunate to be able to work with Senator Bennett, the Senator from Utah, as part of a group of 16 Senators--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans--in what is the first bipartisan effort in the history of the Senate. This is the first time where there has been a significant coalition, a bipartisan coalition, working for universal coverage. Today, what Dr. Orszag did was to affirm the guts of what we have been advocating for. He affirmed it specifically, that this was a way to achieve the cost containment in our health care system that is so essential. There may be other ways, but this is one way to do it. We now have an opportunity over the next few months, as

we get ready for a new President, to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to address this critical question.

I will close with one last comment. On the floor last night were Senator Landrieu and Senator Crapo. I am very honored to have both of them as cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act. We were talking about older workers. Today one of the worst spots to be in is if you are 57 or 58 years old and you are laid off from your job, because if you are laid off at 57 or 58, you go off into the broken individual health insurance market. You better not have any illnesses. It is going to be hard to get coverage. It is going to be very hard to afford it because you are going to be out on your own rather than in a group. And finally, you are not going to get the tax break, if you are all on your own, that you would get if you were with an employer health plan.

The Healthy Americans Act addresses each of those three concerns and, boy, those are not abstract questions for anybody in Colorado or Oregon or Idaho. Ask the GM retirees who got clobbered a few days go. If you are 57 or 58 and you are 8 years away from Medicare, you have a lot to worry about.

Our bipartisan coalition is working, I think, effectively and in the bipartisan fashion it is going to take to address those concerns as well.

I hope colleagues will reflect on what Dr. Orszag said this morning with respect to cost containment. We will have a lot more discussion in the days ahead about the concerns of older workers, as we started last night with Senator Landrieu and Senator Crapo. We are especially thrilled that the distinguished Senator from Colorado is a member of the Finance Committee and I know we will have a chance to work together on those issues as well.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, on behalf of the majority leader I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess from 2:30 to 3:45 today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Jack Reed and myself, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1553, the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquered Childhood Cancer Act, which was received from the House, the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor--and I know we have colleagues who are waiting. I will not speak long--I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Oklahoma for the judgment he has made in letting Senator Reed's bill pass tonight. I know the Senator from Oklahoma cares very deeply about the health care of our young people. He and I served on the health subcommittee in the other body. We can have debates about the merits of specific ways to address health issues. I share the view of the Senator from Oklahoma with respect to making sure there is not a meddling by politicians in scientific matters. But tonight, on this legislation, legislation that has passed the other body 416 to 0, the judgment that has been made by the Senator from Oklahoma is in the interests of all of the youngsters of our country who are suffering so greatly, and their families.

Like the Senator from Oklahoma, I have sat with them as well, with constituents. I just want to express my appreciation that the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act introduced by my colleague, Senator Reed, is going to pass tonight. This legislation would provide critical resources for the treatment, prevention, and cure of childhood cancer.

We had a victim of childhood cancer in my home State, Jenessa Boey Byers. She passed away from cancer last December, and she was only 8. She battled cancer, not once but twice. She beat her cancer back into remission. She lost that second battle with cancer, but it never really beat her.

I will remember always, going to see her in the hospital. What she said to me is that she was a warrior in the

fight against cancer and that she was going to stand up for all of the other youngsters. She was a well-known advocate. She asked me to support Senator Reed's legislation, and I am very proud to do it. In fact, she said to me at one point:

If you sponsor my legislation, you will be my hero.

The fact is, the real heroes of this legislation are these youngsters who have suffered, and suffered so greatly. So the decision made by the Senator from Oklahoma tonight is one that is going to benefit so many families in our country.

I want to pay particular tribute to Senator Reed. He could not be here for the unanimous consent, but Senator Reed has prosecuted this cause for months and months, working with the other body, working here with colleagues. So full credit for this cause goes to Senator Jack Reed who is helping so many of our youngsters afflicted by cancer.

I wish to make one other quick comment. I know colleagues are waiting. I wanted to make this comment with respect to health care, because two of my allies in this health care cause, Senators Landrieu and Crapo, are on the floor. There is special significance about the two of them being here tonight for these additional comments on health. What we have seen again in the last few days is one of the worst positions in our country to be in, to be in your late 50s and laid off from work without health care. If you are laid off in your late 50s, let's say you are laid off at 56, 57, like a lot of these workers we have been reading about in the Midwest who had big layoffs in GM, for example, you go out into a broken individual insurance market. What the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, and the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, and I are trying to do--we are part of a group of 16 in the Senate, 8 on the Democratic side, 8 on the Republican side--is to help all those people in their late 50s who are being laid off.

In fact, under our legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, those people would not go out into a broken individual insurance market. If you are 57, 58, for example, and you are laid off in Louisiana or Idaho, under our legislation today, you can get discriminated against if you have a preexisting condition. What our group has been trying to do, with the leadership of Senators Landrieu and Crapo, is say that is not part of the individual market of the future. You can't be discriminated against under our legislation. So right away we are giving some hope to those older workers who are laid off.

The second thing we do in our group is, we give that laid-off worker who is 56, 57 years old some real tax relief, like she would have gotten through her employer if she still had her job. The irony is, if you are laid off, for example, and you are 57, 58 in the State of Louisiana, if you have some high flying CEO, they have an employer health package, and they get a write-off. But you don't get a write-off if you are a laid-off worker in your late 50s. What we do in our legislation is help those people as well.

I will be talking more about what it is like in this country to be in your late 50s, years away from being able to get Medicare, and going out into the broken individual insurance market. I would have talked a bit longer, but colleagues have been waiting. I thought it was particularly appropriate to bring this up tonight because Senators Landrieu and Crapo have joined Senator Bennett and me in this group of 16 whom I believe tonight, when Americans have read those articles about the GM retirees getting clobbered and losing their coverage, they ought to know there is a bipartisan group of us here in the Senate that is committed to giving those people a fair shake and committed to giving them new hope. They would have, under our legislation, under what Senators Landrieu and Crapo and I are working on, a legal guarantee to high quality, affordable coverage, unlike some of those retirees from GM. They would have a safety net.

This has been an important night in health care. First because Senator Reed's legislation to help youngsters afflicted with cancer has passed, and it honors the memory of one of my constituents from Oregon and, second, I thought it was particularly appropriate with Senators Landrieu and Crapo here tonight, with millions of Americans who are in their late 50s worried that they are going to lose their health coverage, to know a group of us on a bipartisan basis have legislation that would provide real relief, a legal guarantee to high quality, affordable coverage when they lose their job through no fault of their own.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Crapo, with particular thanks to Senator Reed, for passage of his legislation to help youngsters afflicted with cancer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation.

Nanotechnology will redefine the global economy and revolutionize it with an amazing array of technological innovation. There is virtually no industry that will not be impacted by the advances we know are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our Nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology.

Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Senator Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just 8 years later. But that wasn't the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors.

Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly nonstop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindberg in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today.

By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to accelerate investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government-sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 17l4, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority.

Today, other Government-sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the Government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our Nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech.

Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-Prize Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the administration and the entire nanotech community to pass the nanotechnology reauthorization bill.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, I have worked long and hard to advance U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology. Nanotech is a rapidly developing field that offers a wide range of benefits to the country. It can create jobs, expand the economy, and strengthen America's position as a global leader in technological innovation.

Nanotechnology will redefine the global economy and revolutionize it with an amazing array of technological innovation. There is virtually no industry that will not be impacted by the advances we know are possible with nanotechnology. But to unlock the full benefits of nanotechnology's capabilities, the Federal Government must do more to partner with our Nation's innovative entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists. To that end, I am proposing, along with Senator Snowe, legislation that will create an X-Prize competition in nanotechnology.

Many people have heard of the X-Prize, a recent and high-profile example of a prize competition like the one Senator Snowe and I are proposing today. The X-Prize was established in 1996 and set up a $10 million prize fund for the first team who could make civilian space flight a reality. The award was successfully claimed just 8 years later. But that wasn't the only achievement the X-Prize accomplished. During that span of time, the $10 million prize stimulated over $100 million in research and development by the competitors.

Successful prize competitions are not limited to the X-Prize. We have seen the value of these kinds of competitions before. One of the most famous was the Orteig prize, which was to be awarded to the first person to fly nonstop across the Atlantic Ocean. Claimed, of course, by Charles Lindberg in 1927, the Orteig prize stimulated private investment 16 times greater than the amount of the prize. Imagine what kind of explosion in investment and innovation we could achieve in nanotechnology with the competition we're proposing today.

By establishing this nanotechnology prize competition, the Federal Government will promote public-private cooperation to accelerate investment in key areas and help solve critical problems. The very first prize competition was, in fact, a Government-sponsored competition that produced a revolutionary technological breakthrough. In 17l4, the British Parliament established a prize for determining a ship's longitude at sea. At the time, the inability to accurately determine longitude was causing many ships to become lost. Solving this critical problem by creating a competition to find the answer paved the way to British naval superiority.

Today, other Government-sponsored prize competitions are driving technological breakthroughs and successes For example, the DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge have stimulated tremendous advances in remotely-controlled vehicle technology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act is a vital tool to help ensure that public and private resources will be utilized in a coordinated way and will be devoted to solving the complex and pressing problems that America faces today. This bill will also spur technological investment and create jobs here at home. Through this prize competition, the Government will be able to leverage its resources and focus the intellectual and economic capacity of our Nation's best and brightest entrepreneurs on finding the big answers we need in the smallest of technologies--nanotechnology.

The Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act creates four priority areas for the establishment of prize competitions: green nanotechnology, alternative energy applications, improvements in human health, and the commercialization of consumer products. In each of these areas, nanotechnology holds the promise of tremendous breakthroughs if the necessary resources are devoted. This competition will make sure we get started as soon as possible on finding those breakthroughs. We all know that the competitive spirit is one of the strengths of our country. This bill will ignite that spirit in nanotech.

Again, I thank my colleague from Maine for her help and cooperation in introducing this bill. I also want to thank the Woodrow Wilson Center and the X-Prize Foundation for their work in helping to develop this bill. I look forward to working with the Commerce Committee, other members of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, the administration and the entire nanotech community to pass the nanotechnology reauthorization bill.

I urge all my colleagues to support innovation and promote entrepreneurial competition by cosponsoring this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I stand today to object to any unanimous consent agreement in connection with the nomination of Mr. Husein Cumber to be a member of the Surface Transportation Board, or STB. I don't take this action lightly, and I would like to take a few moments to briefly describe why I am placing a hold on his nomination.

Railroads and transportation infrastructure are the lifeblood of our economy. My home State of Oregon has recently been the victim of a short line railroad that has subverted consumer protections established by Congress in an attempt to reduce service and raise rates. The STB is the last line of defense against companies that are more interested in maximizing profits than they are in their legal obligations as a common carrier.

To be an effective safeguard against this activity, the STB needs board members with in-depth experience and knowledge of a broad range of rate, service and railroad merger issues. The law says that members of the STB should possess professional standing and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of transportation or transportation regulation. I am very concerned that Mr. Cumber doesn't possess any of these qualities.

Mr. Cumber's nomination requires this body to seriously review his record of accomplishment in light of these requirements and demonstrated abilities. I have compared Mr. Cumber's record with those of other current and former members of the STB, and I would like to share some of my findings with you today.

First, Chairman Charles Nottingham, a licensed attorney. Chairman Nottingham has 4 years of experience in the Federal Highway Administration working on everything from funding analysis to policy development. He has an additional 4 years at the state level as the Transportation Commissioner and CEO of Virginia DOT. He was the counsel to the Committee on Government

Reform in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chairman Nottingham is unquestionably qualified for the duties required of a board member and a good example of what the STB needs in a nominee.

Vice Chairman Francis Mulvey, with a Ph.D. in Economics, is likewise qualified. He has legislative experience as the Staff Director for the Railroad Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. He was the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Rail, Transit, and Special Programs in the Department of Transportation. He was the Assistant Director charged with analyzing transportation issues at the GAO. His experiences outside government are equally valuable: He was the Programs Manager for the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board. He was also the Vice President for Research with the American Bus Association. Again, Vice Chairman Mulvey is an exemplary member and a model for future nominees.

Former Chairman Linda Morgan, an attorney with a Georgetown law degree, was supremely qualified to work on the STB. For 15 years she held various positions with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. While there, she was responsible for much of the legislation that established the framework for today's surface transportation system. She also served as the general counsel of the committee.

Former Chairman Roger Nober was the counselor to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation for a year before joining the STB. Before that he spent 4 years as the chief counsel for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. For the 4 years before that, he held a variety of positions on that committee's staff. And for the 4 years before that, he put his Harvard law degree to use in New York City. His breadth of experience, most of it relating to transportation issues, made him very well qualified to serve as a board member and chairman.

Former Vice Chairman Wayne Burkes served in the Mississippi legislature for 14 years; 4 years in the House of Representatives, and 10 years in the Senate. He served on the Highways and Transportation Committee all 14 years. After his time in the legislature, he then spent 10 years as the Mississippi Transportation Commissioner for the Central District. His understanding of transportation issues was certainly unquestioned.

Even a cursory review of current and former board member qualifications makes it clear what kind of nominee this important regulatory body requires. I would like to bring the Senate's attention now to our current nominee, Mr. Husein Cumber. There are stark differences between what you have just heard and what I will present to you now.

Mr. Cumber's regulatory experience in transportation is limited to his short tenure as a political appointee at the Department of Transportation--1 year as the Deputy Chief of Staff, and some time as the Assistant to the Secretary for Policy. For his private sector expertise, he can point to his year as the spokesman for Florida East Coast Industries. And before that, he was a political fundraiser for President George W. Bush and Governor Jeb Bush. He was what some referred to as a fundraising wunderkind. One story noted that he ``devours business cards like most mortals do potato chips.'' Developing these political relationships, he said, allowed him to ``meet some great people and there's going to be a payoff in the end.''

The President has nominated Mr. Cumber to work on a vital regulatory board with the capacity to impact our economy, our infrastructure, and the wages of hard-working Americans across the Nation. Reviewing the qualifications of other members, be they PH.D.s, attorneys, or career legislators, I see that broad experience in regulatory, policy, and economic matters surrounding rail transportation is essential. Understanding the common carrier obligation of the rail industry is essential. Advocacy for consumers in the face of enormous pressure from powerful industry representatives is essential.

Mr. Husein Cumber is, by all accounts, a hard-working man. But hard work alone is not sufficient qualification for nomination to the board of an important consumer protection agency. It is also essential that a nominee have demonstrated experience and expertise in the issues that come before the agency.

I recently met with Mr. Cumber to discuss his nomination. I found him to be polite, personable, and eager. I did not, however, find him to be knowledgeable of the critical issues that have come before the STB. His experiences in lobbying and fundraising stand out and will no doubt help him in his future endeavors outside of government. But what is important here is what he has been nominated to do while serving in a government position.

Members of the Surface Transportation Board have to make important decisions affecting our Nation's transportation policy from the moment they are sworn in. They do not have time for on-the-job training.

Mr. Cumber's nomination to the STB may in fact be ``the payoff in the end'' he has been working toward. But a seat on the Surface Transportation Board shouldn't be a payoff. It's not a prize to be won--it is a job to be done. And it is a job to be done by someone armed with credentials and credibility, not by someone armed with only cash and connections.

I am compelled to object to this nomination for the reasons I have provided. My hope is that the administration will acknowledge the importance of the STB in their search for a qualified nominee and keep looking for one.

Mr. President, 100 years ago the automobile revolutionized the way Americans lived and did business. Government responded by making a massive investment in infrastructure to support this new technology. That investment gave our industries a real competitive advantage in the world marketplace for much of the 20th century by making it cheaper and easier to move goods around the country.

Today, information technology has brought an equal, if not greater, revolution to American business. But this time, rather than investing in infrastructure and fostering growth, we have allowed the country's IT infrastructure to be taxed at dangerous and unhealthy levels that put American business at a competitive disadvantage.

The information revolution has changed the way we learn, the way we work, the way we hold elections, and the way we communicate as a society, among other things that keep our country working. It has made vast educational, health care and entrepreneurial opportunities accessible to our most remote communities. But telecommunication taxes in the U.S. have been levied at a rate much higher than other types of sales and business taxes.

Rather than investing in IT infrastructure, we have left it to the private sector to build and maintain our telecommunications networks. And while this practice has sometimes served Americans well, we are falling behind some major international competitors in far too many areas.

I am not today calling for anything as far-reaching as Federal investment in IT infrastructure--today I am simply asking that we stop yoking our most innovative IT networks with increased taxes.

Wireless broadband holds the promise of connecting even our most distant communities to the rest of the world. In time, these connections will bring health care, educational, communications and commercial services to Americans who have been left out for far too long. This growth will not happen if we keep burdening this important technology with what amounts to discriminatory taxation.

I have fought for many years to expand the development of the Internet and our telecommunications infrastructure. Along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I worked to successfully protect our network providers from content-related litigation. Four times now, I have fought to protect the Internet from being hit with multiple discriminatory taxes from thousands of State and local tax authorities--and have worked to extend that protection indefinitely.

Today I am proposing something far more modest--if just as necessary--that we put a moratorium on new or increased taxes on our wireless telecommunications infrastructure and services for the next 5 years.

Along with my colleague Senator Snowe, I am introducing the Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act to keep mobile wireless services and facilities free from new discriminatory taxes.

This bill would not impact a single current tax that has been levied by a State or locality. It will not remove a single dollar from their communal coffers. What it will do is guarantee our wireless network providers protection from even greater taxation at a time when we are asking them to implement the largest technology upgrade in history--an upgrade that will bring economically important, true broadband speeds to wireless customers for the first time.

I will admit that there are lots of problems with the way Federal, State and local taxes are levied on telecommunications services. This legislation addresses only one of those problems, but it is a big one.

Taxes on wireless services are some of the most regressive taxes in the Nation. Cell phones and other wireless devices have become essential to many working Americans, for their jobs, for their safety and for maintaining the communications they need to stay in touch with families when both parents work and raise children. Piling increased taxes on these families at a time when budgets are being stretched by skyrocketing gas and food prices is not only unreasonable, it is downright wrong.

I am proud that my colleague Senator Snowe joins me in introducing this important legislation. Senator Snowe has long been an advocate for the improvement and expansion of our IT infrastructure and today we have taken another important step that will help strengthen our country and our economy today and in the future. This proposal joins H.R. 5793 by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Cannon in the House and I look forward to working with them to see this important legislation passed.

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

Mr. President, 100 years ago the automobile revolutionized the way Americans lived and did business. Government responded by making a massive investment in infrastructure to support this new technology. That investment gave our industries a real competitive advantage in the world marketplace for much of the 20th century by making it cheaper and easier to move goods around the country.

Today, information technology has brought an equal, if not greater, revolution to American business. But this time, rather than investing in infrastructure and fostering growth, we have allowed the country's IT infrastructure to be taxed at dangerous and unhealthy levels that put American business at a competitive disadvantage.

The information revolution has changed the way we learn, the way we work, the way we hold elections, and the way we communicate as a society, among other things that keep our country working. It has made vast educational, health care and entrepreneurial opportunities accessible to our most remote communities. But telecommunication taxes in the U.S. have been levied at a rate much higher than other types of sales and business taxes.

Rather than investing in IT infrastructure, we have left it to the private sector to build and maintain our telecommunications networks. And while this practice has sometimes served Americans well, we are falling behind some major international competitors in far too many areas.

I am not today calling for anything as far-reaching as Federal investment in IT infrastructure--today I am simply asking that we stop yoking our most innovative IT networks with increased taxes.

Wireless broadband holds the promise of connecting even our most distant communities to the rest of the world. In time, these connections will bring health care, educational, communications and commercial services to Americans who have been left out for far too long. This growth will not happen if we keep burdening this important technology with what amounts to discriminatory taxation.

I have fought for many years to expand the development of the Internet and our telecommunications infrastructure. Along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I worked to successfully protect our network providers from content-related litigation. Four times now, I have fought to protect the Internet from being hit with multiple discriminatory taxes from thousands of State and local tax authorities--and have worked to extend that protection indefinitely.

Today I am proposing something far more modest--if just as necessary--that we put a moratorium on new or increased taxes on our wireless telecommunications infrastructure and services for the next 5 years.

Along with my colleague Senator Snowe, I am introducing the Mobile Wireless Tax Fairness Act to keep mobile wireless services and facilities free from new discriminatory taxes.

This bill would not impact a single current tax that has been levied by a State or locality. It will not remove a single dollar from their communal coffers. What it will do is guarantee our wireless network providers protection from even greater taxation at a time when we are asking them to implement the largest technology upgrade in history--an upgrade that will bring economically important, true broadband speeds to wireless customers for the first time.

I will admit that there are lots of problems with the way Federal, State and local taxes are levied on telecommunications services. This legislation addresses only one of those problems, but it is a big one.

Taxes on wireless services are some of the most regressive taxes in the Nation. Cell phones and other wireless devices have become essential to many working Americans, for their jobs, for their safety and for maintaining the communications they need to stay in touch with families when both parents work and raise children. Piling increased taxes on these families at a time when budgets are being stretched by skyrocketing gas and food prices is not only unreasonable, it is downright wrong.

I am proud that my colleague Senator Snowe joins me in introducing this important legislation. Senator Snowe has long been an advocate for the improvement and expansion of our IT infrastructure and today we have taken another important step that will help strengthen our country and our economy today and in the future. This proposal joins H.R. 5793 by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Cannon in the House and I look forward to working with them to see this important legislation passed.

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