Floor Statements

It is a great honor to come to the floor in celebration of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel. The creation of an independent Israeli State was truly one of the most significant events of the 20th century. Following the horrific events of the Holocaust, the founding of the State of Israel symbolized a recognition of the right and the need of the Jewish people to have a homeland--a place of sanctuary and security after the senseless annihilation of 6 million Jews. The Holocaust was not the first or the last genocide. It was the culmination of centuries during which Jews were ostracized, persecuted, and purged from country after country. The Jewish people struggled to maintain their heritage, their traditions, and did so in the midst of other cultures, after the fall of Jerusalem and enslavement by many other societies.

For over 2000 years, Jews faced discrimination, including restrictions of their rights, religious practices, and even professional occupation. Yet even as Jews were able to prosper and establish themselves as an integral part of society in Europe, this progress was wiped out by the Nazi regime. Thousands upon thousands of Jewish families, including my own, were uprooted from their homes and forced to flee for their lives for no other reason than the fact that they were Jewish. Not all of our family was able to get out. We lost family at Krystalnacht. We lost family at Theresienstadt. My family came to this country knowing they were coming to the best and freest place on Earth. But not all were able to come here. Many European Jews were not allowed entry into other countries, including the land that is now Israel.

Upon the conclusion of World War II, the United States joined with other countries in the United Nations to recognize the right and need of the Jewish people to have the security of being able to live in their own state. The United States was, in fact, the very first country to recognize the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. After thousands of years, Jews had established in their historic homeland a sovereign country of their own, Israel. Yet Israel is much more than a sanctuary for the Jewish people. Israel's importance transcends the Jewish religion. Israel is a place of enormous historic significance. It is a sacred land not only for Jews but for Christians and Muslims as well. All three of the world's major monotheistic faiths honor Jerusalem and other surrounding sites as holy places that hold unique importance to the development of their religions. Israel has worked to protect the interests and rights not just of Jews but those of all faiths.

The Israeli Government provides access to historic and religiously significant sites and allows clergy, scholars, historian, archeologists, and others to pursue their studies of this very historic, very special land. Israel is also of enormous importance to our country. Israel is America's strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. In a region that has been plagued by instability but is of enormous strategic significance, Israel is a stable democracy and a stalwart ally.

As a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I follow these issues closely and would say from the Camp David accords to the current peace talks, Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness to work

along with the United States to engage its neighbors in difficult negotiations. Despite constant attacks and threats to its very existence, Israel has given up land and made very significant conciliatory offers in the interest of achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.

Finally, beyond the religious, historic, cultural, diplomatic, and strategic significance, it is important to recognize the impact Israel has had at the human level for its citizens and for people around the globe. Israel has established a thriving economy, a world-class education system, and has advanced scientific and technological innovation on numerous fronts. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota and I have talked many times about the issue of health care. It is striking to see the Israelis in such an innovative, focused kind of way look to health care improvements that are going to be of great use, not just to the people of Israel but to many around the world. In 60 years, Israel has truly established itself as a global leader and a vital partner in the international community.

It is a great honor to be able to stand today on the Senate floor to recognize the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. I look forward to continuing the close and indispensable partnership between our country and Israel. Today I wish the people of Israel the greatest success, the greatest happiness, and especially peace for the next 60 years and beyond.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, there is now an historic coalition here in the Senate, a group of 14 Senators. Seven Democrats and 7 Republicans are sponsoring a health bill guaranteeing all Americans quality, affordable health care coverage. There has never been such a coalition in the history of the Senate.

Today our group got some historic news. The Government's go-to officials for budgeting and taxes have thrown decades of conventional wisdom into the trash can. They have informed our group that all Americans can have quality, affordable health care coverage without breaking the bank.

Briefly, here is what the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have found. They found that our legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, can be up and running in 2012. They found the legislation would become budget neutral in 2014. That means our legislation is self-financing in the first year that universal health care coverage would be fully implemented in our country. In the years after 2014, because the legislation holds down health cost increases, it starts to generate budget surpluses for the Federal Government.

This analysis is fresh, independent evidence that health care can be fixed without massive tax increases or boatloads of additional Government spending. It is a chance, in my view, for Congress and our country to look at the issue of health care reform with fresh eyes, because what the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have analyzed doesn't involve a set of lofty principles or some of the oratory from the campaign trail, but it is actual legislation.

Because this report is a historic document, I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated today from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation be printed in the Record. The report is available on the CBO Web site www.cbo.gov.

Madam President, I wish to touch on a few points with respect to this report. Obviously, the key to fixing health care is to contain costs. Our bipartisan legislation does that by making sure all Americans have more clout in the marketplace. We achieve that by making sure that everyone goes into a big pool, because if they are off by themselves, they don't have a lot of ability to get the best deal for their health care dollar. But if they belong to a bigger group, they have a lot better chance of containing costs. We cut the administrative costs of health care. We use a State and regional pooling approach that has been found to cut administrative costs. We get patients out of unnecessary hospital emergency room visits because more would get seen on an outpatient basis. We make progressive changes in tax law and we empower consumers, because for the first time, if they have employer- based health coverage, they could actually find out what is being spent on their health care. Right now, basically all they know is they are not seeing their wages go up because health care costs are eating up all of the employers' resources. We think making sure that the worker knows what is being spent on health care provides them a new set of opportunities to get more for their health care dollar.

My view is that today's health care system is largely driven by employers and insurance companies. Clearly, there is a significant role to play for them. But what we do in our legislation is provide a bigger role for individuals and especially their health care providers--the thousands of doctors and nurses and physician assistants. We make sure that everybody under our legislation could have a health care home. So instead of being lost in an incredibly complicated health care system, there would be one person who would coordinate each individual's care.

A big part of what we are doing in this bill is to modernize the employer-employee relationship in the health care field. What we are doing in 2008 in health care as it relates to employers and employees isn't much different than what was done in 1948. The Chair can remember all of the efforts of President Truman to make changes in American health care. So we modernize that relationship. We continue to let employers who choose to offer coverage, but we give the workers more choices with respect to their health care and we give the employers much needed cost relief, which is especially essential at a time when they are competing in tough global markets.

I want to mention all of my colleagues who are sponsoring this legislation with me. Senator Bennett of Utah, a member of the Republican leadership, is the principal cosponsor. Senator Bennett's knowledge of economics, in my view, has few equals and I could not have a better partner for this whole effort. We have seven Democrats and seven Republicans who are on the effort. I am particularly pleased that so many from the Senate Finance Committee, where Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have worked in a bipartisan tradition for years, are part of our effort. From the Senate Finance Committee we have Senator Grassley and Senator Crapo and Senator Stabenow cosponsoring the legislation, all of them making a great contribution in this area.

As we go forward in the days ahead, Senator Stabenow's expertise and interest, particularly in health information technology, is going to be instrumental. For example, Dr. Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, who brings great professionalism to this effort to look at health care, this morning when he briefed eight of us in the Senate on the legislation, mentioned the fact that the evidence suggests as much as 30 percent of the health care dollar is spent in a fashion that produces very little value. So what Senator Stabenow is trying to do with health information technology, electronic medical records, and other innovative approaches is to wring more value out of every health care dollar. Her contribution is so very important.

Senator Grassley and I have worked together on many health care issues. Of course, the partnership we have on the Finance Committee between Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley is a very rare and a very beneficial alliance here in the Senate, and I so appreciate Senator Grassley's involvement.

Senator Crapo is my partner in the West who has a great interest and long-standing involvement in rural health care, and we are very pleased that he is an additional voice on the Senate Finance Committee for the legislation.

I would also like to credit the other Senators who are involved. We are very pleased that Senator Landrieu, who is helping to reinvent health care in her State as a result of destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina and all of the challenges they face, has been particularly interested in and creative in thinking about opening up new opportunities for entrepreneurship in her State and elsewhere. Senator Landrieu correctly points out that if you modernize the employer- employee relationship in health care, that is going to mean we are going to have more entrepreneurs. It is going to be good for business. It is going to be good for our economy. We are going to be able to grow our economic base in the country. Senator Landrieu argues very eloquently, in my view, that if you provide some cost relief for the employers who got into the business of driving health care by accident in the 1940s, you are going to be able to create jobs and strengthen our economy.

Senator Nelson, a former insurance commissioner, is one of our cosponsors. He has great expertise in insurance regulation. In fact, he pointed out this morning some of the tools that are going to be necessary to prevent price gouging in health insurance and is making a great contribution there.

Senator Lieberman has a long-standing interest in this and is a cosponsor. Of course, his involvement is particularly critical because his State is a center of health insurance and technology and there are a variety of major economic concerns involved.

We are very glad to have Senator Gregg, who is the ranking member on the Budget Committee and a driving force on keeping down health costs to make health care more affordable and available to all. We're also pleased to have the support of Senator Inouye, who as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has shown his leadership in health care research for our soldiers and sailors with benefits for all Americans. We also appreciate the support of Senator Corker, who has been a leading advocate for reforming the tax code to make health insurance more available and affordable. And we're grateful for support from Senator Coleman, who has the world renowned Mayo Clinic in his state and himself has been a leader in the area of health technology. And we are especially pleased to have the support of two former governors, Senator Carper and Senator Alexander. The Healthy Americans Act gives a major role to the states in reforming our health system and it's critical to have the support of Senators with the knowledge of state government and executive leadership experience they have supporting our legislation. It is a group unlike any other we have seen in the history of the Senate. Fourteen Senators--seven Democrats, seven Republicans--actually cosponsoring together a piece of legislation that will guarantee all Americans affordable, good quality coverage.

This legislation ensures that all of our people have choices such as we have here in the Congress. We have choices among a number of very good private sector packages. It ensures that coverage for the first time will be portable. You can take your coverage from job to job to job, which is something that millions of Americans desperately want.

It is our future. The fact is that today, by the time you are 35 years old, you are likely to change your job 7 times. Yet the system almost locks you into your present position. You cannot move. You cannot go to another opportunity. I think to have a portable health system where you can take your coverage from job to job to job and not worry about losing your coverage if you want to take a promotion or start your own business is particularly important.

The best part about it is that the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office have said this can be done in a revenue-neutral way.

We have had a number of Senators involved who have longstanding credentials in terms of being tougher on budgets and concerned about fiscal discipline. Now, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office have said that, contrary to popular wisdom that universal coverage is going to break the bank and require tax hikes and new spending, it can be done in a budget-neutral kind of fashion.

Finally, I want to add since I think I really didn't do him justice earlier--Senator Inouye has been a wonderful addition to our group. He and his staff have had a great interest in looking at a number of health reform issues, particularly ones that make better use of our workforce, focused on prevention and quality. We are thrilled to have him as well.

Madam President, I note that one of our colleagues has come to the floor. I will wrap up simply by saying that I think the entire Senate should be very grateful for the outstanding work done by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, led by Peter Orszag and Edward Kleinbard. Those two organizations have never issued--in the history of their organizations--an analysis like the one they made available today. Never in the history of the organizations has there been such an analysis.

I submit that if there had been an analysis like this done the last time the Congress debated universal coverage back in 1993 and 1994, if there had been a report like this one from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, they could have moved forward on a bipartisan basis to actually pass legislation, see it signed into law, and end the disgrace that a country such as ours, which is good and strong and talented, hasn't been able to fix American health care.

This time, I think we are up to it. Senator Bennett and I have kept apprised the leadership in the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is our determination to work with colleagues of both political parties. We intend to work with the Presidential candidates. I have talked with Senators Clinton and Obama many times about the Healthy Americans Act. I talked to Senator Graham last night about the Congressional Budget Office briefing. We know of his involvement with Senator McCain. If you are going to deal with a big, important issue, it has to be bipartisan.

Today, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have made a significant contribution to our effort to move forward and actually enact universal health coverage that works for all Americans. We are indebted to their organizations.

I am particularly grateful to colleagues who have joined as cosponsors in this effort. Senator Bennett and I will continue to work with colleagues like Senator Baucus, Senator Kennedy and others over the next 6 or 7 months so that this can be ready to go for the next President of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, more than 40 months ago, prior to his confirmation as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff told me in my office that if confirmed he would move expeditiously to implement the National Emergency Technology Guard--NET Guard--program. Unfortunately, Secretary Chertoff has so far failed to honor this pledge.

The idea of NET Guard was born in the aftermath of 9-11, when a number of communications and technology companies told me they wanted to help New York City when it was attacked--and there was no system for using their volunteers. Then-Senator George Allen and I moved on a bipartisan basis to support a program, called NET Guard, that would ensure that volunteers with technology expertise could be fully utilized in future crises. These teams of local volunteers with science and technology expertise would be vital in assisting our communities in responding to attacks on communications networks, or recovering from natural disasters. Congress authorized the establishment of NET Guard 5 years ago, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

However, DHS has delayed and delayed and so far failed to implement this critical program.

At times, Secretary Chertoff has appeared willing to move forward on NET Guard, but each time he stops short of action. On August 1, 2007, the Secretary pledged to me in a letter that he would be submitting a request to fund the NET Guard program in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget. I will ask that a copy of Secretary Chertoff's letter be printed in the Record. I thought this meant that the Secretary recognized NET Guard's potential and understood Congress's intention in authorizing the program. Unfortunately he failed to fulfill this promise and we again find ourselves at an impasse.

I feel that further delay is unacceptable. I reluctantly feel that I must put a hold on the nomination of Harvey E. Johnson who has been nominated by President Bush to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, until the NET Guard program is up and running.

I place this hold reluctantly, but see no other option in light of the Department's foot dragging. I am hopeful that the Department will soon be able to stand up a NET Guard program, and I will be able to withdraw my hold and Mr. Johnson's nomination can move through the Senate. In the meantime, I

will object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider Mr. Johnson's nomination.

I ask that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

The letter follows:

U.S. Department of

Homeland Security,

August 1, 2007.

Hon. Ron Wyden,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for taking time this morning

to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's plans for

the National Emergency Technology Guard (NET Guard) program.

Following my June 29, 2007 letter to you that outlined our

program approach, and as a prelude to our discussion, members

of the Department's NET Guard team briefed your staff on our

proposed plan. The positive feedback from your staff, coupled

with your positive feedback this morning and the positive

feedback that we have received from State, local, and private

sector stakeholders, gives us confidence that we are taking

the right approach to implementing this important disaster

response program.

Accordingly, the Department is moving forward with plans to

implement 12-month NET Guard pilots beginning in September

2007. The recommendation to establish pilots in September is

consistent with the NET Guard Scoping Initiative Report,

which I will provide to you upon its completion this month.

To fund our efforts in fiscal year 2007 and 2008, we will

continue to work with Congressional appropriators. I will

also submit a request to the White House Office of Management

and Budget to fund the NET Guard program in fiscal year 2009.

On these and other program matters, the Department's Office

of Legislative Affairs will keep your staff apprised of our

progress.

I appreciate your interest and support of the Department's

disaster response mission and look forward to working with

you on this and other issues.

Sincerely,

Michael Chertoff.

Madam President, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Dr. Victor Fuchs, physicians and distinguished scholars, have recently written a particularly important article that I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate.

These two gentlemen have a long and impressive track record on the issue of reforming our Nation's broken health system, and their recent article in the Journal of American Medicine (JAMA), ``Who Really Pays for Health Care? The Myth of Shared Responsibility,'' is one that every Senator should reflect on.

Drs. Emanuel and Fuchs assert in their article that when millions of Americans say that financing health care is a ``shared responsibility'' between ``employers, government, and individuals'' they are incorrect. The authors say there is actually no such thing as ``shared responsibility''--health costs in America come out of the hides of individuals and households. Emanuel-Fuchs point out, for example, that money employers spend on health care for their workers would otherwise go to workers' salaries and that Government cannot secure funds at all without reaching into our wallets for tax payments or money we lend to them.

The work of these two scholars is particularly relevant because recent public opinion polls show significant numbers of Americans would be content ``to just keep the health care they have.'' This seems understandable. If

you are not a regular reader of JAMA, you are likely to miss Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Fuchs describe how your take-home pay is going to keep going down without health reform that makes health care more affordable.

If Americans are kept in the dark about how much of the money spent on employer-based health care produces little value, naturally, during these times of economic uncertainty, many will be glad to just keep the care they have got.

Senator Bennett and I, along with six other Democrats and six other Republicans, believe it is time to modernize the employer-employee relationship in health care. If employers choose to offer health coverage in the future, and workers know how much money they are spending and can choose between the employer's health coverage and private sector alternatives, we are fine with that. Workers should, however, have the opportunity as Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Fuchs put it to ``consider alternatives''. Americans can get more value from the 2.3 trillion dollars being spent this year on their health care, and this article is an important part of the discussion as to how to bring that about.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Drs. Emanuel and Fuchs be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the next 33 hours, millions of Americans will face mindless, relentless, needless tax torture trying to shovel their way out from under an avalanche of bureaucratic forms as they struggle to complete their taxes.

Citizens Against Government Waste has calculated that Americans spend 4.3 billion hours each year filing their tax returns and complying with our tax laws. That is a lot of time to spend on something that is about as interesting as prolonged root canal work.

My guess is many Americans would rather read the phonebook than our Tax Code, and the phonebook is actually a lot shorter. So I am going to give one example of the heavy reading Americans have in front of us over the next 33 hours.

The alternative minimum tax, of course, is a killer tax for millions of Americans. It calculates taxable income differently than the regular tax. It adds a whole new layer of complexity to the Code and headache for our citizens. So I am going to read one of the portions of the AMT rules that clobber our middle-class taxpayers, and it is the one that is used to calculate the size of the interest deduction middle-income folks are allowed in our country.

Under section (C), it reads:

In determining the amount allowable as a deduction for

interest, subsections (d) and (h) of section 163 shall apply,

except that--

(i) in lieu of the exception under section 163(h)(2)(D),

the term ``personal interest'' shall not include any

qualified housing interest (as defined in subsection (e)),

(ii) sections 163(d)(6) and 163(h)(5) (relating to phase-

ins) shall not apply,

(iii) interest on any specified private activity bond (and

any amount treated as interest on a specified private

activity bond on under section 57(a)(5)(B), and any deduction

referred to in section 57(a)(5)(A), shall be treated as

includible in gross income (or as deductible) for purposes of

applying section 163(d),

(iv) in lieu of the exception under section

163(d)(3)(B)(i), the term ``investment interest'' shall not

include any qualified housing interest (as defined in

subsection (e)), and

(v) the adjustments of this section and sections 57 and 58

shall apply in determining net investment income under

section 163(d).

It is obvious to all who are still awake at this point, since I have gone through just one of the sections, this is not exactly clarity in American Government. I cannot find anybody who can get through this. I would go through it again, but I only have 10

minutes since our friend, Senator Cornyn, is here for his remarks.

These words were actually written by a human being. The only thing more bizarre than the fact somebody thought they made sense was the language was then made law by another group called the Congress. So there is a reason the dictionary definition of the adjective ``taxing'' means ``wearingly burdensome.''

This burden is especially hard on small businesses. Small businesses are the engine that keeps our country going, but it is amazing they can move at all under the weight of what the Tax Code subjects them to.

The National Association of the Self-Employed is today releasing results of a survey of their members that shows what the 45 million small businesses and self-employed persons are going through with their taxes.

The group's survey, for example, found that almost one in five people who had gone to the IRS to get answers to their tax questions got conflicting responses, sometimes even from the same office.

The time small businesses waste complying with the tax laws is mind- boggling. Thirty-one percent of them recently said they spent 20 percent or more of their time every week on paperwork and other tax- related preparations. That is 1 day a week totally lost to tax preparation. That is a huge penalty that is being imposed on small business for complying with the rules of the IRS.

Another group suffering with our Tax Code is our older people. During the 2004 tax year, the IRS mailed 200,000 error notices to older Americans who miscalculated their taxes. Mr. President, 34,000 went to taxpayers who received the same notice in 2 tax years; 10,000 went to taxpayers who received it in 3 tax years.

What does all this tell you? It tells you the IRS cannot make their explanations understandable to the Nation's older people.

There was one word that kept coming up in this survey over and over. The people surveyed said: You have to simplify the Code, simplify our tax system.

That is what I am trying to do with the legislation I have introduced as a Member of the Senate Finance Committee. It is called the Fair Flat Tax Act, and it eases the burden on our taxpayers by offering them a simplified 1040 Form. Instead of this kind of mumbo-jumbo, it is 1 page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer. The folks over at Money magazine, the financial publication, took the one-page 1040 form in the fair flat tax, and they could fill out their taxes in just 15 minutes.

The legislation makes our code flatter. It collapses the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three. The fair flat tax eliminates scores and scores of special interest tax breaks. The revenue derived from these changes is used to hold down the rates for everybody and keep progressivity. More importantly, with the fair flat tax everybody in America has a chance to get ahead. There is a new opportunity with this legislation to promote economic growth, to grow the American economic pie, which is especially important during these times of great economic uncertainty.

One last point. For all of us on the Finance Committee--and I think Senators of both parties understand this--there is a Tax Code meltdown coming. The child tax credit ends in 2010, the marriage penalty roars back in 2011, and it comes back harsher than ever. The same meltdown is going to hit other income taxes--capital gains, dividend taxes--and if Congress doesn't come up with a thoughtful and responsible bipartisan solution, there is going to be new chaos in the world of taxes.

I have tried this afternoon to be a little bit lighthearted in discussing what is certainly a pretty dry topic for most Americans. But when you look at what they are going through tonight, if you are middle class and you are dealing with AMT, this is obviously not a laughing matter. The people of this country need tax reform, and they need it now. The fair flat tax would make our system simpler, fairer, and more progrowth. It makes sense for individuals, for families, and the businesses of our country. The Congress cannot any longer ignore the tax meltdown that is coming. It is time to fix the broken American tax system and eliminate this kind of needless suffering that so many of our citizens are going to endure over the next 33 hours.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wished to begin this morning by thanking Chairman Bingaman for his public assurance today that S. 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, will not be the final public lands bill taken up by the Senate this year.

I know that is going to be encouraging news to the people of my home State who, in particular, want to see our treasured Mount Hood receive additional protection and want to make sure its scenic beauty will be preserved for future generations.

As the chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I know firsthand how important these public lands bills are to folks in the States where the lands are located. There are several pieces of legislation that involve my home State. The proposals contained in this bill have all passed the House, passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I hope they will become law.

I especially express my appreciation to the distinguished senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, who has toiled month after month after month on her extraordinarily important wild sky wilderness legislation. She, of course, is joined in that by our colleague Senator Cantwell. This is going to be something of great pride to all of us in the Pacific Northwest. I congratulate Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell on their efforts.

Today, though, as we deal with S. 2739, we also include in that legislation that I authored, referred to by Chairman Bingaman, the Park Service authority to enter into cooperative agreements to better protect the parks' natural resources. Chairman Akaka has joined me in this effort, and I commend him for all of his work to protect our treasured national parks.

The legislation also includes another bill to study the Columbia Pacific Natural Heritage Area, something that has been of great importance to local communities. It also includes important legislation for my home State to protect our water resources.

It is important to note that our work cannot be considered done with this legislation. There is another public lands package reflecting the work of many Senators in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee which also contains a number of important pieces of legislation that have strong bipartisan support. Among those bills are two measures vitally important to the people of my home State: the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007 and the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act. That is why it is my view that the Senate should move quickly on today's legislation, S. 2739, and then, with the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, go forward with other measures that have been, regrettably, stalled for much of this Congress.

I have been to the floor before to speak about the Mount Hood Wilderness Act. This is a thoroughly bipartisan piece of legislation that I and Senator Smith have worked on for many years. It passed unanimously out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Regrettably, it has been held up for many months now. Mount Hood is one of the most photographed and visited wild places in the United States. The legislation we have written to protect this icon is the result of many meetings, scores of discussions from a diverse number of Oregonians. They are anxious to see this legislation moved forward. That is why it is so important that the Senate act after the Senate passes S. 2739. Countless Oregonians and other westerners have been frustrated to see all their years' efforts to enact new wilderness protections for Mount Hood, which has passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee, get stalled here on the floor.

As I have noted in the past, the bill to protect scenic areas as Lewis and Clark first saw them has now taken longer to get through the Senate than it took Lewis and Clark to get to Oregon. Our constituents don't understand how a bill that has such strong bipartisan support is being held up. They don't want to see it held hostage, not for partisan politics or for any other reason. They also feel that Copper Salmon is a gem that deserves protection.

The bipartisan legislation to protect Mount Hood builds on existing Mount Hood wilderness but adds more wild and scenic rivers and provides a recreation area to allow diverse recreational opportunities. We would protect the

lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River gorge. The protected areas include scenic vistas, almost 126,000 acres of wilderness and, in tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of 79 miles on nine free-flowing stretchers of rivers would be added to the National Wild and Scenic River system. From what Senator Smith and I hear about our legislation and the places we have proposed for wilderness protection--and we have talked to local community leaders, to environmentalists, to timber and mining interests--we believe we have gotten this legislation right.

The bill responds to the thousands of comments I have received on both of my previous efforts to protect Mount Hood, input at public meetings held in Oregon, and letters and phone calls. I have met with over 100 community groups and local government leaders, members of our congressional delegation, the Governor and the Bush administration. Among the comments we got was a resounding cry for additional wilderness, particularly more recreational opportunities.

There are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest. The legislation we are talking about would increase that amount by about 126,000 new acres of wilderness. These protections, protections for such important Oregon places, should not be held up by procedural wrangling. It is one thing if there is any sense on a piece of legislation involving wilderness of significant interest groups not being consulted, not being allowed to participate. I can see every reason to hold up that kind of legislation. But when everybody feels they have been consulted, you have complete bipartisan support from the State and the Natural Resources Committee, we ought to be in a position to move forward.

I am going to repeat today what I have said before: My doors are open to every Member of the Senate on this legislation and everything else. If you want to get anything important done, you have to work with colleagues. If there are additional objections to Senator Smith and me moving forward with the Mount Hood legislation, we want anybody who has an objection to come to us, because we will meet them halfway in an effort to try to address their concerns. But we have to do what Chairman Bingaman has pledged today, and that is to have an additional package of bills that is so important. I know the distinguished chairman from New Mexico has measures that are important to him. He has brought a bill to the floor of the Senate today because he wants to help all of the communities across this country that have worked to try to address these issues. I commend Chairman Bingaman for it. Frankly, I respect his selflessness in this effort. But we have to move on after we act today.

I hope this legislation will pass quickly, that it will then be possible for the Senate to turn to the next public lands bill, and we will be able to adopt that swiftly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk to the Senate and America about the great pride that I and other Oregonians are feeling about the recent championships of Jefferson High School's girls' and boys' basketball teams, the Democrats. Both teams have been crowned winners of the 2008 5A state championship, respectively. Both the boys' and girls' basketball teams have had amazing seasons. In fact, Jefferson is the first high school in 5A history to ever win dual championships in the same season. This is an extraordinary accomplishment for a school that has only 600 kids in their student body and competes with schools that are much larger in size all the time.

The championships capped a regular season in which both teams turned in performances that were unprecedented in Oregon sports history. The Jefferson girls went undefeated with a regular season record of 27-0 and won their championship against a very tough Hermiston team on March 8, 2008. The

Jefferson boys had a regular season record of 24-1. They duplicated the girls' victory the following weekend on March 15, 2008 by winning their first state championship in the 5A Division against a very good Corvallis team.

Both teams showed an incredible amount of determination; they proved their great will to win and displayed a spirit that would not allow them to give up. As a former basketball player myself, I know how hard it is to win and play at a high level for multiple games. I am especially proud because Jefferson High School has a special place in my heart. When I started my public career in Portland, I lived in the Jefferson district, so I always feel like it is home.

I learned a long time ago that the Jefferson community is the heart and soul of Portland. That is why I want all of my colleagues in the Senate and people around the country to know about the Jefferson Democrats' Herculean efforts and achievements. These two teams exemplify the character and true values of Oregonians by proving that hard work can lead to great success. They have shown that if you really work at something and are persistent, you can get the job done on and off the hardwood.

I want to salute all the members of the girls' basketball team and acknowledge the exceptional play of their starting lineup Janita Badon, Dequise Hammick, Nyesha Sims, Ariel Reynolds, and Tyrisha Blake who have proven to be the best girls' starting lineup in Oregon. Without the solid contributions from Jasmine Smith, Arquazia Jackson, Daniel Dixon, Debbie Blackmon, Arqueisha Preston, Hollisha Watson, Denaya Brazzle and Adreya Hudson, the Democrats would not have won a state championship. They also had great leadership that took them all the way to the championship, starting with their head coach, Michael Bontempts, and his outstanding assistant coaching staff.

I also want to salute the members of the boys' basketball team who carried on the tradition of winning that has been built by so many Jefferson champions who came before them community and business leaders like Tony Hopson, Ray Leary, Aaron Miles, and Michael Lee. Each of them began at Jefferson and went on to become winners in life after winning championships on the court. It will not surprise me when I read about the huge individual successes that these stellar players from the 2008 championship teams will have in their future. Oregonians everywhere will surely be watching as they go off to pursue great things.

So I applaud all the players on the boys' basketball team along with their head coach, Marshall Haskins, and his coaching staff. They put together a great starting line-up for the 2007-2008 season, including Terrance Jones, Terrance Ross, Tyrone White, Kalonji Paschel, Henry Williams and Jordan Black who is known as the best sixth man in 5A basketball. The Jefferson boys' roster was loaded with talent that gave them an option of a second starting line up that often made it difficult for teams to prepare for them when Darrel Nelson, Noah Kone, Jonathan Hall, Marlon Miles, Alexander Johnson, Robert Price, and Rashad Dent entered the game.

Jefferson keeps winning against all odds. They are true champions and an inspiration for all Americans both on and off the court. Their commitment and dedication to hard work has given me a new reason to be proud that I am an Oregonian. I will savor this unique moment in our State's sports history along with my fellow 3 million Oregonians as I congratulate both the girls' and boys' Democrats on a job well done.

Mr. President, along with Senator Clinton, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Dodd, I am introducing legislation that will correct a fundamental wrong perpetrated in the 2005 that allowed Federal bureaucracy to override local control by placing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the primary role of siting Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. That action, taken in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, took what had historically always been a state government responsibility--the permitting of LNG storage terminals--and handed it off to a Federal agency in Washington, DC--FERC.

At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea and the history of FERC's actions since then have borne us out.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG proposals pending before FERC. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the three publicly announced interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it's not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market. FERC also asserts that it has no obligation to determine which of these proposals--and the hundreds of miles of pipelines that would cut through forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods to connect them to the interstate pipeline system--has the least environmental impact to our State and our citizens' private property.

To make matters worse, FERC's insistence that each of these projects is a separate, unrelated project has produced a bureaucratic nightmare of competing public meetings, scoping hearings, and filing requirements for each project. Letters from local officials to FERC asking legitimate questions about impacts on local land use don't get answered. They simply get filed, because that's what the FERC process is set up to do--to process paper and not address real concerns.

The end result is a public process in which the public has no due process and no assurance that their concerns will be heard, much less addressed.

At every turn, FERC's LNG siting process in Oregon has defied common sense and public accountability. It is a process divorced from the real world questions that need to be answered. The situation in other parts of the country is no different.

It's time to restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about in whose backyard a pipeline or

LNG plant will be built. It is time to reverse the ill-considered decision Congress made in 2005 when it overrode State and local decision-making to put a Federal bureaucracy in charge of LNG siting authority. This bill would do exactly that.

I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me in sponsoring this important legislation to give States and local communities a say in where LNG facilities and pipelines should be built. I urge colleagues to join me in sponsoring the bill.

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

Mr. President, along with Senator Clinton, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Dodd, I am introducing legislation that will correct a fundamental wrong perpetrated in the 2005 that allowed Federal bureaucracy to override local control by placing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the primary role of siting Liquified Natural Gas, LNG, terminals. That action, taken in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, took what had historically always been a state government responsibility--the permitting of LNG storage terminals--and handed it off to a Federal agency in Washington, DC--FERC.

At the time, 45 Senators went on record saying that cutting State siting agencies out of the LNG siting process was a bad idea and the history of FERC's actions since then have borne us out.

Right now, in Oregon, we have three separate LNG proposals pending before FERC. Together, they would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet, BCF, of gas per day. Oregon and Washington, together, only use 1.33 BCF per day. Yet, FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market. FERC also refuses to consider whether any of the three publicly announced interstate pipeline proposals to bring natural gas to Oregon from the Rocky Mountains would be a better option. In fact, FERC asserts that it's not its job to determine which, if any, of these proposals best serves our market. FERC also asserts that it has no obligation to determine which of these proposals--and the hundreds of miles of pipelines that would cut through forest lands, farms, vineyards, and residential neighborhoods to connect them to the interstate pipeline system--has the least environmental impact to our State and our citizens' private property.

To make matters worse, FERC's insistence that each of these projects is a separate, unrelated project has produced a bureaucratic nightmare of competing public meetings, scoping hearings, and filing requirements for each project. Letters from local officials to FERC asking legitimate questions about impacts on local land use don't get answered. They simply get filed, because that's what the FERC process is set up to do--to process paper and not address real concerns.

The end result is a public process in which the public has no due process and no assurance that their concerns will be heard, much less addressed.

At every turn, FERC's LNG siting process in Oregon has defied common sense and public accountability. It is a process divorced from the real world questions that need to be answered. The situation in other parts of the country is no different.

It's time to restore the local and State role in these critical decisions about in whose backyard a pipeline or

LNG plant will be built. It is time to reverse the ill-considered decision Congress made in 2005 when it overrode State and local decision-making to put a Federal bureaucracy in charge of LNG siting authority. This bill would do exactly that.

I am pleased that Senator Clinton is joining me in sponsoring this important legislation to give States and local communities a say in where LNG facilities and pipelines should be built. I urge colleagues to join me in sponsoring the bill.

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

Mr. President, it is not easy talking to a family member or loved one about what kind of medical care you'd want or not want at the end of your life. Yet every day family members are making medical care decisions for seriously ill people who cannot speak for themselves. Most family members with relatives who had executed advance directives find comfort in knowing that the hard decisions they may need to make about end-of-life care will reflect the wishes of the ill relative. End-of-life planning is a gift to the people who are important to you and to yourself.

Americans are talking a lot more about the topic of advance directives than they used to and are also doing something about it by preparing written advance directives. Advance directives come in two main forms. The first is a ``health care power of attorney'' in which someone is designated to be your voice in health decisions if you can not speak for yourself. The second is a ``living will'' which states what types of medical care you would want or not want at the end of life. Most married people have had a conversation with a husband or wife about end of life medical care and most people have spoken with one or both older parents about the topic. Research has found that people who have had to make decisions about medical care at the end of life for others are more likely to make end of life plans for themselves. They have learned how important it is to make a plan. Congress helped to get the advance directives conversation going with the Patient Self-Determination Act. This law directed Medicare- participating health care facilities to engage patient and staff in a discussion of end of life wishes. Since 1990 when the Patient Self- Determination Act was passed, the percentage of Americans who have made a living will has more than doubled from 12 percent to 29 percent.

Yet more conversation is needed. The National Health Care Decisions Day will help promote that conversation. National Health Care Decisions Day will be a 50-state annual event to increase knowledge and awareness of the importance of advance directives for all Americans. At this year's annual event on April 16, 2008, a coordinated series of activities across the U.S. will encourage Americans to discuss their wishes for end-of-life care and then fill out documents that reflect those wishes. The National Heath Care Decisions Day is supported by many of our distinguished local, state, and national health care organizations.

This joint Senate-House resolution: supports the goals and ideals of National Health Care Decisions Day and the importance of advance care planning, encourages health care, civic, educational, religious and other organizations to encourage individuals to use advance directives, and asks all Americans, including members of Congress, to prepare advance directives for themselves. The Senate resolution is cosponsored by Senators Enzi, Wicker, Warner, and Whitehouse. A companion House resolution will be introduced by Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. I encourage my congressional colleagues to support this resolution. I also ask you to begin or continue the dialogue about end-of-life issues with family members and to complete written advance directives.

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

Mr. President, it is not easy talking to a family member or loved one about what kind of medical care you'd want or not want at the end of your life. Yet every day family members are making medical care decisions for seriously ill people who cannot speak for themselves. Most family members with relatives who had executed advance directives find comfort in knowing that the hard decisions they may need to make about end-of-life care will reflect the wishes of the ill relative. End-of-life planning is a gift to the people who are important to you and to yourself.

Americans are talking a lot more about the topic of advance directives than they used to and are also doing something about it by preparing written advance directives. Advance directives come in two main forms. The first is a ``health care power of attorney'' in which someone is designated to be your voice in health decisions if you can not speak for yourself. The second is a ``living will'' which states what types of medical care you would want or not want at the end of life. Most married people have had a conversation with a husband or wife about end of life medical care and most people have spoken with one or both older parents about the topic. Research has found that people who have had to make decisions about medical care at the end of life for others are more likely to make end of life plans for themselves. They have learned how important it is to make a plan. Congress helped to get the advance directives conversation going with the Patient Self-Determination Act. This law directed Medicare- participating health care facilities to engage patient and staff in a discussion of end of life wishes. Since 1990 when the Patient Self- Determination Act was passed, the percentage of Americans who have made a living will has more than doubled from 12 percent to 29 percent.

Yet more conversation is needed. The National Health Care Decisions Day will help promote that conversation. National Health Care Decisions Day will be a 50-state annual event to increase knowledge and awareness of the importance of advance directives for all Americans. At this year's annual event on April 16, 2008, a coordinated series of activities across the U.S. will encourage Americans to discuss their wishes for end-of-life care and then fill out documents that reflect those wishes. The National Heath Care Decisions Day is supported by many of our distinguished local, state, and national health care organizations.

This joint Senate-House resolution: supports the goals and ideals of National Health Care Decisions Day and the importance of advance care planning, encourages health care, civic, educational, religious and other organizations to encourage individuals to use advance directives, and asks all Americans, including members of Congress, to prepare advance directives for themselves. The Senate resolution is cosponsored by Senators Enzi, Wicker, Warner, and Whitehouse. A companion House resolution will be introduced by Congressman Phil Gingrey, M.D. I encourage my congressional colleagues to support this resolution. I also ask you to begin or continue the dialogue about end-of-life issues with family members and to complete written advance directives.

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

Madam President, this Chamber has recently been consumed by discussion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, we don't all agree on this issue. But there are a few things that I think we can agree on.

We can agree that the brave men and women serving their country overseas and at home are doing a superb job. We can agree that we have the finest fighting force the world has ever known. And we can agree that our veterans deserve benefits for the sacrifices they make and the risks they take while serving their country.

For nearly 65 years, one of those benefits has been affordable access to a college education when they return from war. Commonly called the GI bill, this benefit is widely recognized as one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. Unfortunately, for many Oregonian citizen soldiers this benefit has remained just out of reach.

Oregon has no large active duty military bases, and most Oregonians who serve their country do so in the National Guard or Reserves. They stay trained and ready, and when our nation needs them they fight bravely. But when the fighting is over, they return to their communities and their jobs. And, all too often, their sacrifice is not rewarded the way it is for members of the active duty force.

An active duty soldiers can collect GI bill benefits even after they leave the military. However, if a member of the Oregon National Guard wants to attend Portland State University after fighting in Iraq for a year, he or she must

stay in the Guard, risking another deployment, to collect his or her benefits.

I believe that as a matter of basic fairness, soldiers that share the same foxhole for the same length of time should get the same benefit. Some people say ``That's too logical for government.'' But fortunately, Senators Webb and Warner recognizing this basic inequity have written a bill to correct this problem, and generally modernize the GI bill.

I firmly believe education should be both available and affordable to all service men and women, and it for this reason that I am proud to stand today in support of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.

Many servicemembers who volunteered to join the armed forces after September 11, 2001, did so with the full knowledge that they would very likely be called to serve in harm's way. Over 600,000 members of the Nation's Guard and Reserve have been called to active duty. Since our nation came under attack, more than half of the Oregon National Guard has deployed overseas. Oregon's deployment rate has ranked among the highest per capita in the Nation. The National Guard has done much more than they have historically been called upon to do, and at great sacrifice. This bill honors all who have served on active duty on or after September 11, 2001, by expanding the educational benefits provided under current law.

The cost of higher education has increased dramatically in recent years. Over the past 5 years, the average cost of tuition has increased 35 percent. Room and board costs have also risen on average over 35 percent. Many of our servicemembers have put their educational plans on hold while at war, and the rising cost of education has outpaced their ability to pay. This has put them at a competitive disadvantage in a nation that has called them to service. This bill would put them back on equal footing. Servicemembers, including activated Guard and Reserve members, who have served on active duty for at least 3 months would be entitled to benefits under this bill.

As with previous GI bills, this bill would secure tuition payments, a monthly stipend to assist with living expenses, and a stipend for books and required educational expenses. This bill would go a step further, however. Instead of recognizing an activated reservist's longest consecutive active service, this bill would recognize cumulative active service. This is a crucial distinction that recognizes the way we employ our forces today. Payments and stipends would be scaled up to 100 percent. The benefits would be protected if a servicemember is deployed or transferred. It would contribute to licensure and certification testing and to some college-level correspondence courses. Finally, this bill would establish a new program in which colleges or universities may voluntarily agree to make up or reduce the difference between tuition costs and what the new benefits would provide. Under this program, the benefit would match a school's additional contribution dollar for dollar, up to 50 percent of the tuition difference.

This bill would not just recognize and reward our service men and women for their sacrifices. It would create a meaningful retention and recruiting tool for our active, Guard and Reserve forces, and it would provide an investment in the future of our Nation by encouraging and contributing to the kinds of education and training that lead to good jobs, good pay, and economic stability. I am proud to cosponsor the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act and encourage its immediate passage so we can begin to repay the debt we owe to those who stand guard and defend our liberty.

Mr. President, I was prepared to come to the floor tonight and ask unanimous consent that the

Senate proceed to take up and pass the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood wilderness legislation, and I am very pleased that my colleague from our State, Senator Smith, was prepared to join me this evening. We were going to tackle this issue which is so important to the people of our State in a bipartisan fashion.

Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. There is statewide consensus in every corner of Oregon that this protection is essential, and Senator Smith and I have worked for a great many years trying to move this legislation forward. It has passed the relevant Senate committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the two of us had hoped tonight to pass this legislation by unanimous consent.

Regrettably, my colleague has been informed by the Senator from Oklahoma that he would not let us go forward with this legislation tonight. I greatly regret this. The people of our State are waiting. They have been waiting many years for this. They have understood that Senator Smith and I have tried to approach this not just in a bipartisan way but in the most inclusive way we possibly could, working with environmental concerns, timber concerns, and the concerns of local officials and scientists. We have had scores and scores of citizens' groups involved in this effort.

Our constituents just don't understand how a piece of legislation that has all of this consensus behind it and all of the energy and passion that Oregonians have brought to it, cannot pass tonight and be done quickly so that this legislation could pass the Senate and go to the other body where our colleagues, particularly Congressman Blumenauer and Congressman Walden, have also put in many hours, in a bipartisan way, to try to get this legislation enacted and sent to the President.

The reality is that the people of our State want this State icon protected and not held hostage. I am very interested in working with our colleague from the State of Oklahoma. I want to try to address any concerns he may have. I am perplexed as to what those are because we can't get any specifics as to what they actually are.

I think that at this time I would like to yield to my colleague from the State of Oregon for his remarks and perhaps just wrap it up briefly afterward. But I think it is unfortunate tonight, when both of Oregon's Senators wanted to pass this much needed legislation, that we couldn't go forward when there is such strong bipartisan support.

Mr. President, with a reservation so I can wrap up briefly, let me yield to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his remarks.

I know colleagues are waiting. I am going to wrap up very briefly. I commend my colleague from Oregon for an excellent statement. The fact is, this legislation has been a labor of love for the people of Oregon. They have been involved in scores and scores of meetings in communities all across the State. And all they want to do is protect these scenic areas as Lewis and Clark first saw them.

The fact is, it has taken years longer to pass this legislation through the Senate than it took Lewis and Clark to get to Oregon. And that is why Senator Smith and I have indicated we hope to get any further concerns that my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, or any other Member of the Senate has, because I certainly do not think this is a partisan issue.

When you have legislation like this that seeks to protect almost 126,000 acres and more than 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers, including some of the most pristine and treasured areas of our State, all of the people who are going to visit this area, Oregonians and non-Oregonians alike, they are not going to see this as an exercise in partisan politics. They are going to see this as Lewis and Clerk saw this: in effect, protecting the very special parts of Oregon that are a treasure to our State, that are a treasure for the people of the country.

And as Senator Smith indicated, our doors are open. We want to proceed with this legislation in the Senate just as quickly as we possibly can. Our colleagues in the other body are waiting for it. That is what it is going to take to get the Senate and the other body to work together, and get it sent to the President of the United States. I wish we were getting it done tonight. Senator Smith has indicated so as well. I do not think there is any reason it did not get done tonight, for all practical purposes. But we are going to continue to work in good faith with all the Members of the Senate, and we hope to be back on this floor very soon to see this critically needed legislation advance and get passed by this body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I wish to commend my friend from Rhode Island for persistently and energetically prosecuting this cause, because having gotten to know Boey at home and visiting her in the hospital, I think all of us will understand it is hard to conceive of anything more tragic than seeing a young person's life claimed by cancer.

Senator Reed has been educating the Senate on this issue of importance, of research of this disease. I got to know Boey, and that is why I am glad he referred to her as a warrior. I would just tell my colleagues that if Boey had been an elected official, she would have been the chair of the Warrior Caucus because this very young child really did not know how to rest in the effort to try to get this legislation passed and to help our youngsters.

When she was taken from us, she had battled cancer not once but twice. The first time, she had beaten her cancer into remission. She lost her second battle, but she simply never rested. The day that I saw her last in the hospital, what we spent our time on was Boey and I walking down the halls with Boey trying to cheer up the other youngsters who were at the hospital. She put aside her own pain and fear that cancer would claim her life because she wanted to be, as Senator Reed has noted so eloquently, a warrior for all of the other children who have been suffering.

I am pleased to be out here with Senator Reed. I think this is another example of the entire country coming together to try to stand up for these kids. As Senator Reed has noted, when cancer strikes, it strikes a whole family. That was the certainly the case with Boey. Her loving parents, Rob and Rachel, her older brothers, Chris and Joe--all of us have continued to think about Boey and all she did to brighten our lives and particularly stand up for our children.

So for purposes of this evening, I simply wanted to ask my friend one question. This Senate can certainly have spirited debates about a lot of issues. Senators can have differences of opinion on a variety of questions, and we come from different parts of the land. The Senator from Rhode Island represents a State 3,000 miles from mine where Boey lives. But I am still troubled why the Senate cannot come together and pass this legislation. I think Senator Reed has made the case and made it well. He has clearly reached out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Surely, there should be nothing partisan about legislation such as this that will be so meaningful to children and their families.

For purposes of this evening, I wanted to get a sense from my colleague of what else he felt we ought to be trying to do to pass this important legislation and get it on its way to the President.

One of her many, and you can see her enthusiasm literally popping out of the drawing. She was an incredibly passionate woman. You have stated it well. I know of no Members of the Senate who get up in the morning and say they want to be hostile to children who are suffering this way. I think a piece of legislation such as this gets lost in the clutter of the Senate calendar and the business of the Senate.

All of us have staffers who handle health legislation and staffers who are serving as legislative directors. I think for purposes of tonight, particularly given your eloquent remarks, I hope the phone will ring off the hook in your office tomorrow with Senators and staffers calling and making clear they want to know more about this legislation and hopefully be cosponsors so we can get it passed.

I will do everything I can to help. I think the Senator has said it well. In a sense, his work acknowledges something we all see every time we are home, and that is that health care has always been the biggest issue here at home.

The Senator from Rhode Island is someone I admire in so many areas, relating to international affairs, with great expertise, and obviously there are many pressing concerns around the world. But the reality is, here at home, if our loved ones and our families do not have their health, it is hard to do anything else. I know in the case of Boey and the wonderful family, Rob and Rachel and her brothers, they were consumed by this. They all threw everything they had into trying to be there to comfort Boey, to get her the treatment she needed. So we ought to do this for the kids, and we ought to do this for the families. There are a lot of other issues we will be tackling both in health care and around the Senate schedule. This is something we ought to do now.

Well said.