Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today reflecting on the most pressing issues on the minds of the American public--that of the current situation in Iraq. We have been in Iraq for nearly 4\1/2\ years, and frustration is certainly understandable. I wish nothing more than to see the United States reach a point where our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are able to leave and the Iraqi people can stand on their own. Our military has done an exceptional job. That point cannot be debated. But as so many have said, victory and ultimate success in Iraq cannot be completed solely through military strength.

I wish also to specifically point out the leadership of the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, on this issue. Having just returned from Iraq, his pointed remarks on our united efforts in Iraq and the importance of our mission are much needed.

Senator McCain understands, as I do, that the terrorist threat in Iraq will not stop, nor will our safety improve at home if our forces leave. In their own words, these dangerous ideologues continue to make bold and alarming threats worldwide, but even more importantly, they are backing up their words with action. They will continue to strike our allies in the gulf and they will continue to strike our friends in Europe, and I believe they will not hesitate to strike America again, as they did on September 11.

That said, I am extremely disappointed that more progress has not been made on the political and domestic security from within Iraq. The fact remains, Iraq is simply not ready to take over their own country today, and if the United States were to leave, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. Al-Qaida is training, operating, and carrying out their missions in Iraq right now. As evidenced in Britain 2 weeks ago, they are clearly still a threat and are still determined to accomplish their goals of destroying western culture. That much has not changed.

On July 12 the President issued a report as required by the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations bill assessing the progress of the sovereign government of Iraq's performance in achieving the benchmarks detailed in the bill. As we know, this report told us that 8 of the 18 benchmarks detailed in that bill received satisfactory marks. While we are certainly disappointed that more benchmarks were not achieved, it is important to highlight the success that is being made, and how the Iraqi government is performing, as their success will ultimately allow us to responsibly reduce our troop levels.

Specifically, the government of Iraq has made progress in forming a Constitutional Review Committee to review the constitution. This is important, just like in our Nation's history; we needed to create a constitution that provided a standard for which to base our laws. Though many contentious issues continue to exist, I am pleased that significant progress is being made. If Iraq cannot form their constitution, then it will be very difficult or impossible to move forward onto other matters.

Also, the Iraqis have satisfied the requirements set forth to enact and implement legislation forming semi-autonomous regions. This law is set to come into effect in 18 months, but thus far this potentially very contentious issue has not received much attention. This is important as it further organizes and equips Iraq to take on the responsibilities of a democratic government and this benchmark furthers the necessary groundwork needed to build a responsible and legitimate government.

Iraq has made progress to ensure the rights of minor political parties within the legislature and maintain that their rights are protected. Clearly this is important in obtaining legitimacy, particularly given the historical and present conflicts between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

On the security front, the Iraqis, with coalition support, have successfully reached benchmarks establishing joint security stations across Baghdad that provide a continuous security presence. These stations are necessary as they can effectively combine American technology and capabilities with the Iraqi presence on the ground in order to counter insurgent threats where they begin. By mid-June, 32 joint security stations have reached initial operational capability and 36 combat outposts have reached initial or full capacity.

Also, the goal of providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades in support of Baghdad operations has been achieved and this complements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Certainly this is a major priority as the development of a functional and effective Iraqi fighting and security force is absolutely essential for the Iraqis to further take the reins of their government, and I am pleased that these goals are being accomplished thus far.

At the beginning of this year, the President changed the focus of this effort. Decisions were made for a new direction. ADM William Fallon was placed in charge as CENTCOM commander and the Senate unanimously confirmed GEN David Petraeus as the new commander of our forces in Iraq. The much talked about, and much criticized, surge of 28,000 additional troops has only been underway for just about 3 weeks now.

Operation Phantom Thunder began on June 15 and already Iraq, and particularly Baghdad, is a much different place than it was only 6 months ago. U.S. forces have begun working closely with Iraqis to bring down sectarian violence of al-Qaida in country. So far the new counterinsurgency has decreased Shiite death squad activity and many militia leaders have been disposed of. Execution levels are at the lowest point in a year, and al-Qaida hotspots in the city are shrinking and becoming isolated from one another and supply lines are being cut around the city.

For the first time in years the U.S. is operating freely in eastern Baghdad as we are surrounding the villages and small towns around Baghdad routing out insurgent bases. Already, total car bombings and suicide attacks are down in May and June, and by the end of June, American troops controlled about 42 percent of the city's neighborhoods, up from 19 percent in April.

Initial military success certainly does not mean that operations are complete, nor is political victory guaranteed. The fact remains that this body unanimously confirmed GEN Petraeus with the knowledge that he planned to initiate this surge that would ideally route out al-Qaida and ultimately clear the path for internal change within Iraq. Again, the surge began on June 15 and we owe it to our troops who are placing their lives on the line not to pull the plug on them while they remain in harm's way.

Our best and brightest military minds have worked to construct this new strategy and we need to see it through. I would like to see our troops come home today, but the harsh reality remains that this is not a valid option, will not make us safer, and is not in our national interest. If we leave, it is naive to think al-Qaida and our enemies will just go away and we will no longer be threatened.

Additionally, I have heard many of my colleagues discuss on the floor some of their new strategies in Iraq, strategies that I believe would weaken us at home and abroad. What I find curious is that they keep referring to finding a bipartisan resolution in Iraq, when only months ago this body overwhelmingly approved 2 new military commanders in the region and a new diplomatic leader in Ambassador Crocker. We also approved, in a bipartisan manner, the new way forward in Iraq that President Bush eloquently defended this morning. In that vote, this body committed that we would allow the surge to go forward and would give GEN Petraeus the time to enact the strategy. I cannot in good conscience cut short a plan barely 3 months old.

As we all know, in September a complete review of Iraq policy, including a detailed assessment of the surge will be presented. I look forward to that assessment. I look forward to making the appropriate decisions based on that report. It would be disingenuous to simply discontinue the plans that our military leaders have planned and are putting into place simply for political gains.

Remarkably, the Senate is in a similar situation that we were only months ago when many in this body wanted to reject the strategy GEN Petraeus proposed in Iraq, even before he has been given the full opportunity to perform his mission. Well, we are at it again. For what reason did my colleagues agree to the new strategy in Iraq but are not willing to support our own self-imposed guidelines? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I will not. I will continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary deadlines and thresholds in Iraq--and plead with my colleagues to do the same.

Let's not stand here this week and prejudge what will come out of the September 15 report, but more importantly, let's not prejudge the talents of our men and women in Iraq. Let's give our military and diplomatic teams the time they deserve, and which we had promised them.

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

Madam President, I thank my good friend from Kentucky for introducing this resolution, and his superb leadership on this particular issue. It is always a pleasure to be able to join my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, in these efforts to help make Colorado a better place to live.

This is an important issue not only to Kentucky but extremely important as far as the State of Colorado. I rise today to support the McConnell amendment; that is, amendment No. 2061, and urge my colleagues to join with me as it is debated here on the Defense authorization bill.

The amendment itself is very straightforward. It requires the Department of Defense to complete destruction of our chemical weapons stockpile no later than the year 2017. To that end, additional military construction funding in fiscal year 2008 is also authorized at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, and the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. These additional military construction funds were identified by the program manager as necessary to help meet any accelerated schedule changes at the two sites.

Before I get into the details of why acceleration at these sites is necessary, let me first give a little background about the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The United States, by ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, was to have disposed of our chemical weapons by 2007; that is, this year. In April of 2006, the United States requested a 5-year extension allowed by the treaty, which was granted in December last, 2006.

The extension gives the United States until April 29, 2012 to destroy its stockpile. However, in its extension request the United States explicitly noted that. We do not forecast 100 percent destruction by the new deadline, but remains committed to completing its stockpile destruction under international observation as quickly as possible.

I voted against the Chemical Weapons Convention when it was before us for ratification. Nevertheless, the United States has signed the convention, and this body voted to ratify it. Therefore, I believe our Nation has an obligation to comply with the convention. Yet clearly the Department's budget requests have been insufficient to meet the escalating costs of the program for the destruction of our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile. I believe the Department should have added money to its budget request to pay for these new costs. Unfortunately, they have not.

This body knows this is not the first time I have joined my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, on the Senate floor to discuss these activities. At our urging, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed several provisions in the 2005 supplemental appropriations bill that forced the Department of Defense to move forward with the destruction of chemical weapons at the depot in Blue Grass and Pueblo.

One provision in particular required the Department to spend $100 million within 120 days at the destruction sites. I point out this provision because some might be concerned the sites cannot spend more than they already have. This, in fact, is not true. The program managers at the Pueblo and Blue Grass sites are only limited in their schedules by the amount of dollars they receive. The Department of Defense has consistently failed to provide sufficient funding for this program, forcing those who run it to make programmatic decisions that pit demilitarization sites against each other. The Department of Defense has in the past failed to provide adequate program management.

Finally, it has repeatedly stopped and restarted design work and operations, adding huge startup costs and considerable schedule delays.

I also think it is important that my colleagues understand how many weapons are stored at these facilities. At Pueblo there are 780,078 rounds of chemical warheads being stored. Each one of these rounds is filled with liquid mustard agent. These weapons have been stored at Pueblo since the 1950s and represent 8.5 percent of the original U.S. chemical stockpile. At Blue Grass there are 523 tons of chemical agents representing 1.7 percent of the total U.S. stockpile. The complicating factor for Blue Grass is that the stockpile consists of blister and nerve agent in projectiles and rockets.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense recognized that these sites posed a significant risk to the local communities. With this view in mind, in a memorandum, E.C. Aldridge, then-Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, directed that the ACWA program be accelerated for this reason. For the surrounding communities, these stockpiles are a continual reminder of the threat they face. We must accelerate the destruction of these weapons.

There is no doubt in Senator McConnell's mind, nor in mine, that the Department has been inconsistent and unreliable regarding this program. Only by passing this amendment and inserting a legally binding date will the Department make chemical demilitarization a priority. We both strongly believe that it is past time for Congress to intervene.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I thank Senator McConnell for his hard work, as well as Senator Salazar for his dedication and effort in helping clean up the depot at Pueblo.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I pay tribute today to a legend of the U.S. Air Force Academy's athletic department, Mr. Jim Bowman. After dedicating 49 years of service over six decades to the Air Force Academy, Mr. Bowman, the associate athletics director for recruiting and support, will retire at the end of July 2007.

Mr. Bowman excelled on the football field at Michigan's Charlevoix High School. Following graduation, Mr. Bowman brought his on-the-field tenacity to the University of Michigan, where he played 3 years for the Wolverines, lettering at center his senior year. After graduation in 1956, Bowman joined the Air Force and completed pilot training in 1957 and also attended B-47 transition school.

In 1958, Lieutenant Bowman arrived at the Air Force Academy as junior varsity football coach. He led the junior varsity team for a total of 5 years and the freshman team for 11 years. In addition to his coaching duties, Mr. Bowman also began serving as the Academy's associate athletic director for admissions. However, after the 1975 season, when the Academy added 10 Varsity women's teams in addition to the 17 existing men's teams, Bowman stepped down from coaching to devote his full-time duties to recruiting support.

At the Air Force Academy, Bowman served on a coaching staff that led the Falcons to 17 postseason bowl games and 16 Commander-in-Chief's Trophies, as the top service academy football team. Since arriving at the Academy, Bowman has seen every class graduate, totaling 38,797 cadets to date, has overseen the appointment of an estimated 14,000 recruited athletes, and administered 49 admission cycles. Through this period, Mr. Bowman worked with 16 superintendents, 22 commandants of cadets, 8 deans of faculty, 8 athletic directors, 10 directors of admissions, and 120 assistant football coaches. His extensive experience in all phases of intercollegiate athletics has contributed immensely to the development of the Air Force Academy's athletic programs. Mr. Bowman is an honorary member of the Academy Association of Graduates and a lifetime member of the American Football Coaches Association. In 2001, Bowman was inducted into the Colorado Springs Sports Hall of Fame as part of the 1958 Cotton Bowl team.

Jim Bowman's retirement from the Academy marks the end of an era in Air Force Academy athletics. His 49 years of dedication to Falcon athletes, our future Air Force officers, and the Academy is simply unparalleled. Although his service at the Academy will be missed, I know Mr. Bowman will continue to serve his country in whatever future endeavors he chooses to pursue.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Jim Bowman's hard work and commitment to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the Air Force, and our country. While Mr. Bowman described his service to the Academy as ``a privilege and an honor,'' it is our Nation that is indebted to Jim Bowman for his positive influence in helping to shape the characters of so many of our future military leaders.

Mr. President, I rise today to also voice my opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a House bill which has been sent over to the Senate, H.R. 800. It is commonly referred to as the card check legislation. I am not concerned about the rights or about unions. I am not particularly concerned how the members of a union or how employees decide they want to organize. I am not concerned about corporations or businesses or how those businesses may decide they want to organize themselves. But what I am concerned about is the individual, and I am concerned about whether this is the best way to move forward in a democratic process where the individual is so very important. If we talk about a democratic process, we simply talk about free elections, which assures us the privacy of the ballot box.

My home State of Colorado continues to maintain a low unemployment rate, far below the national average. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 3.5 percent of Coloradans are currently unemployed. This is significant when compared to the national average of 4.5 percent. This is something about which Colorado should be proud to

boast. This is the type of information businesses review when they mull over starting up or expanding in the great State of Colorado. This low unemployment rate is the result of Colorado's strong economy and highly productive workforce.

So when we consider the so-called and wildly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, I know it threatens to turn the clock back on progress we have made. In fact, this is an issue which Colorado has already rejected. This year, our newly elected Democratic Governor vetoed an attempt to enact a similar measure into State law. That vetoed bill would have repealed the Colorado law requiring that once a company's employees approve a union, they have a second secret ballot vote on how dues will be assessed with a 75-percent supermajority required for approval.

Governor Ritter's vote put a stop to the rushed efforts by Democrats in the State legislature who tried to ram the bill through, not unlike those here today. Governor Ritter's efforts protected the 92 percent of Colorado workers who are not members of unions.

Union leaders responded to Governor Ritter's actions with threats to move the Democratic convention from Denver if they don't get their way. If unions are able to make such threats on State governments and State legislatures and State Governors, I question what keeps them from intimidating workers who choose not to join their labor organizations.

Similar rushed efforts are being made at the Federal level, hiding under the deceptive name of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is advertised as an effort to restore economic opportunity for working families. In fact, this legislation threatens the fundamental right of workers to hold democratic elections in the workplace. Private ballot elections would be replaced with publicly signed card check elections. This would invite coercion from both employers and union activists.

Secret ballots guarantee the confidentiality of an employee's wishes without fear of exploitation, ostracism, or retribution. Common sense tells us that if corporate intimidation was a problem, private elections would do more to protect the true wishes of the employee.

History recognizes this democratic system as suitable for electing America's leaders, including every Member of Congress who serves today. Workers deserve the same rights at work as they do when they cast their ballot on election day. Only private ballot elections ensure democracy in the workplace. Ask yourself: Do publicly signed cards reliably reveal a worker's true intentions? Workers should be able to express their true desire about joining a union without pressure or fear of reprisal. Just as undue employer pressure is unacceptable on an employee, so is union pressure.

We speak of big business, but most union elections over the past several years involve employers with less than 30 eligible employees. Compare that to the massive organization labor has built to advance its agenda.

What we are really talking about is big labor versus small business. Secret ballot elections, in my view, must be preserved, not eliminated. So I am asking my colleagues to join me and others in opposing the Employee Free Choice Act because, in my view, it is not about unions. It is not about corporations or big business. This is about the democratic process. It is about free elections and the privacy of the ballot box.

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

I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding me the time to speak on his amendment which basically requires a certification from the Secretary of Energy that these taxes will not increase retail gasoline prices or the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of energy. I think it is a good amendment. Here is why. The current bill, as I see it, does nothing to produce more energy. It doesn't do anything to make energy less expensive. It makes us more dependent on

foreign oil from my perspective. This amendment helps remediate the provisions of the current Energy bill before us.

I think back to the previous Energy bill passed in the fall of 2005, in which we accomplished a lot. We did a lot to increase the supply of energy through incentives and to hold down costs because we were increasing supply. It made us less dependent on foreign oil.

In that particular legislation, we took nothing off the table. We kept traditional fuels out there. Many of those were the petroleum products, but included hydroelectric plants. We also had incentives in there for nuclear fuels. We did a lot to encourage renewable fuels. We had provisions to encourage production of solar energy, production of wind-generated energy, geothermal energy, probably one of the more practical and efficient ways of generating energy, with some of the local governments in the State of Colorado taking advantage of the source. Hydrogen was a source, cellulosic sources of alcohol and energy fuels, corn ethanol. We even had conservation provisions in there, for example, provisions which would allow tax credits for housing and construction projects that produced buildings that conserved energy. It was a good, well-balanced bill, and it didn't have many mandates in it.

One of the concerns I have is the huge amount of mandates and tax increases we have in this bill which will make it more difficult to generate energy. Not only will it make it more difficult to generate energy, but it will also make it more expensive. When you make anything more expensive, consumer demand will go down, but also production will go down because what you are implementing is taxes that are directed to the producer.

As Senator Bunning commented, there is going to be an injustice. It wouldn't surprise me if we have court action and if it doesn't turn away some of the revenue-producing provisions of this bill.

I am not in support of the bill as it stands now. With the adoption of the Kyl amendment, I think it remediates many of the provisions in this bill that I have an objection to. These provisions undo a lot of what we did in the big Energy bill in 2005.

I am urging my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kyl amendment. It simply states that the amendments shall not take effect unless the Secretary of Energy certifies that such amendments shall not increase gasoline retail prices and the reliance of the United States on foreign sources of oil. It is very simple, straightforward. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to note that exactly 20 years ago, on June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin wall, at the Brandenburg Gate, and issued his--issued liberty's--famous challenge to Soviet tyranny:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek

prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you

seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev,

open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Although that speech was deeply rooted in the Cold War, and is indeed seen as a significant milestone in that war, it also spoke larger truths. President Reagan also said:

Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient

hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is

the victor.

President Reagan was not just addressing West Berlin, and the Soviet General Secretary, he was addressing the world, and posterity. He was expounding on the American ideal of liberty and justice for all. He was not addressing a regional problem, but mankind's aspirations. It was a triumphant moment for Americans and our ideals.

Accordingly, I have previously submitted a resolution, S. Con. Res. 1, calling for an artistic rendering of that moment in time to be painted into the Capitol, along with the other significant scenes of our Nation's past. As we walk through the building today, we can see scenes from the Nation's founding, from the Civil War, our westward expansion, even the Moon landing and Challenger astronauts. I would like to also see Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate. I think it would be entirely appropriate to have this image added. It would be an important reminder of the struggle this Nation undertook. It would stand for the millions of Americans who did their part for nearly half a century in that struggle, both military and civilian. And it would testify to the greatness of our Nation, and the greatness of our 40th President.

Today I am adding cosponsors to that resolution. I urge my remaining colleagues to join me as well. This is worth doing.

Mr. President, I am requesting just 30 seconds to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we call up three amendments, Nos. 1187, 1188, and 1201, and then we be returned back to the pending amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I rise to honor my friend Craig Thomas, the Senator from Wyoming who passed away last night, and to express my sympathy to Susan, his wife, and to his family and to the people of Wyoming. Joan and I and my staff feel we have had a very special relationship with Craig and Susan and his staff.

Two weeks ago the Senate passed S. Res. 130 declaring July 28 as National Day of the American Cowboy. This was the last piece of legislation Senator Thomas pushed through the Senate. It is so true to his spirit. Senator Thomas was himself a cowboy, a roper. He understood that as a symbol of the American West, cowboys represent much more than men on horses. They stand for courage, determination, hard work, and respect for nature. They stand for the West itself and for those who wish to protect and preserve it.

His work on the Energy and Environment Committees was a testament as well to his belief that the land we have been blessed with needs stewardship and care, and that those who live on and work with the land are often the best at doing so. Craig tried to take care of the land, especially the Wyoming he loved so much. This connection with the West, his concern for land management, and the way of life of those who lived on the land, should be his legacy. Craig rode forward into the end of his life so bravely that most of us never knew how bad his health was. He told us he was seeking treatment, but the end came quickly and, for him, stoically.

It was always a pleasure serving with Senator Thomas--first in the House of Representatives, then in the Senate, where we collaborated on a whole range of issues. The proximity of our home States and our shared interest and passion for natural resources and energy issues provided many opportunities to partner on legislative efforts.

During the 2001 anthrax attack on the Hart Senate Office Building that pushed several Senators out of their offices, I was happy to offer Senator Thomas and his staff space in my office for several months until his office was deemed safe again. During that time I was able to get to know him and his staff even better.

I offer my condolences now to his staff. He was the type of man who was not just a boss but a friend as well. I know they are hurting. He will be remembered for being the quintessential Wyoming cowboy, a gentleman with quick wit and humility of spirit that endeared him to his colleagues and made him a joy to us all.

Any man who can list cowboy, United States marine, husband, and father on his life's accomplishments lived life well. The Senate has lost a gentle giant who served his State and Nation with honor and distinction. Joan and I are keeping Susan and the family in our thoughts and prayers. I will miss my friend, Craig Thomas.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1189 which strikes the supplemental schedule for Zs. We are scheduled, I understand, to vote on it around 3:30 or so. So I wish to take a few moments to talk about my amendment, which I think addresses a great inequity in the bill, one that rewards lawbreakers over law abiders. Ironically, this inequity is in the same section of the bill that rewards would-be immigrants based on merit. To be clear, I strongly support ending chain migration. I think the bill moves us in that direction, and I think that is

great, and then moving us to a system of merit-based immigration. However, I believe all applicants under the merit-based system should be on a level playing field.

By now, I believe most of us are familiar with the bill's merit-based system which awards points to immigrants based on criteria such as employment, education, and knowledge of the English language. What many of us may not know is the enormous advantage the bill's point system gives to people who have violated our immigration laws relative to people who are seeking to enter this country legally. I am referring to this so-called supplemental schedule for Zs which my amendment strikes. This separate schedule awards up to 50 bonus points--points that are unavailable to people who have never broken our immigration laws--to holders of Z visas seeking permanent status.

Holders of Z visas are defined as lawbreakers in the bill. In fact, this bill specifically requires that an alien prove that he or she broke the law in order to even be eligible for the Z visa. In effect, this supplemental schedule rewards people who enter the country illegally. Worse yet, it disadvantages other qualified people who seek to enter this country legally.

The bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is that the United States benefits from a workforce that has diverse skills, experience, and training, and I happen to agree. I am simply not convinced that a history of breaking the law contributes to this goal more than education and actual experience on the job. So my amendment simply strikes the special schedule that makes people who have violated our immigration laws eligible for 50 percent more points than anyone else. Z visa holders would, however, still be eligible for up to 100 points under the regular schedule--the exact same number as anybody else. We should not reward those who have broken the law, and we certainly should not punish those who have abided by the law.

Now, an argument that has been made against this amendment is that somehow or other it will strike at the heart of the AgJOB provisions. My amendment does nothing to limit the number of agricultural workers. The number of H-2A agricultural visas remains uncapped. Under current law and under the bill, there is no numerical limitation on agricultural visas. Even though it is unlimited, only about 35,000 H- 2As are issued each year. If this bill passes, anywhere from 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens will instantly gain legal status. The question is: Are those people not able to fill these agricultural jobs? Of course they are.

My amendment addresses people who are applying for citizenship, not work, under the new merit-based system. It puts applicants for citizenship on a level playing field whether they worked in agriculture, whether they worked in construction, whether they worked in tourism, or whether they worked in any other industry. On the one hand, you say you want a merit-based system in the bill, and on the other hand, you say you want to give preferences to certain classes of people. My argument is simply that you can't have it both ways, and my amendment simply levels the playing field.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to level the playing field under the merit-based evaluation system, which I think is a good idea. I would urge my colleagues to vote for the Allard amendment.

Mr. President, I understand and appreciate the ranking member's position on this particular piece of legislation. This part of the bill is not well drafted, and I hope we can get this amendment passed and then send a message to the conference committee that this part of the bill needs to be worked on so that we don't allow people who are here illegally an opportunity to step ahead of those citizens who have come here legally. If we can adopt my amendment, then I think the will of the Senate gets clearly expressed to the conference committee, and hopefully the problem with the drafting that has occurred with this section of the bill can be straightened out and preserve the compromise that the ranking Republican from Pennsylvania is striving to hold on to.

If I may respond, Mr. President.

This is where the issue comes up. It is not exactly clear in this paragraph where it provides supplemental points for citizenship, or when in time it begins to apply. If it gets applied in one way in the bill, then the argument my colleagues make is probably valid. But if it gets put in another place in the bill, my arguments apply. This is where we have a drafting problem within the bill.

My hope is that with the adoption of my amendment we will call this to the attention of the conference committee, and this can be rectified when we go to conference.

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

Mr. President, we are drawing to a close here. I have most of the time, I believe. I want to make a few comments on my amendment and then yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Senator Kennedy. I think he needs that to wrap up arguments on his time. I will be glad to yield him that time.

My amendment strikes the supplemental schedule for Zs. Basically this section of the bill provides an advantage for those who came in illegally in applying for citizenship, as opposed to those who came legally.

This is a question of basic fairness. I know there is debate related to one part of the workforce as to another part of the workforce. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about this as a basic fairness issue. I believe this supplemental schedule for Zs rewards those who came here illegally, and could disadvantage those who came legally. I am here to ask that the Members of the Senate support my amendment, because the bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is that the United States will benefit from a workforce that has diverse skills, experience, and training.

I happen to agree with that. However, I am simply not convinced that a history of breaking the law should contribute to this goal more than education or even experience. So my amendment simply strikes the special schedule for Z visas that allows people who have violated immigration laws eligible an additional 50 points. Z visa holders would, however, still be eligible for up to 100 points under the regular system, the exact same number as anybody else.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Allard amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on amendment No. 1189, I would ask for the yeas and nays, and yield back my time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked on the compromise committee. Senator Cornyn from Texas has done yeoman's work on this issue of immigration. He has a good understanding of the bill. I appreciate it. My colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, has also worked hard on this particular piece of legislation.

I wish to say before Senator Cornyn leaves the floor, how much I appreciate his efforts and appreciate the fact that he did put forward, this morning, my amendment dealing with the supplemental schedule for Zs, that is the Z visas, because I think this is an important issue to debate. I appreciate him doing it for me on my behalf.

I am very disappointed the leadership has limited us to only two amendments that we can call up today. I have a total of about five that I am working on. I have four ready to be called up. I was not a member of the compromise committee. I know Senator Cornyn is a very honorable Senator. Whenever I inquired of him as to what was going on in the conference committee, the bipartisan committee, he didn't believe he could share that information with me because he believed he was working within the committee.

The vast majority of us are looking at some of these issues for the first time. Some of them are issues that have been coming up before the Senate from the previous debate and they are old hat. But the fact is, this is a new bill. In my office on Saturday morning, I got a rough draft with things penciled in, in the margins. That is what comes out of the committee. Then, as mentioned, on Monday night the substitute amendment was finally filed in the Senate. It wasn't until Tuesday that we got a final print of the bill. I don't know how many pages are in the final bill--I think it would be close to 1,000 pages in standard format. I do not believe I have had an adequate opportunity to have input. I was assured by the leadership that there is going to be plenty of opportunity for amendments--don't worry. But here we are on Friday and we are limited to two that we can call up.

I have four here at the desk that I have filed, but I think the people need to understand, because you file them doesn't mean you get to bring them up and have a vote on them. They have to be made pending. That is what Senator Cornyn has done to help me out on one of my amendments. I thank him for that effort.

First, let me comment a little bit about the general direction of this legislation. In current law we have what we call chain migration. What happens with chain migration is you come into the United States, and once you become legally here in the United States, that allows members of your extended family to follow you in.

We are moving more toward a merit-based system, which is a direction in which we need to move. We cannot absolutely go all merit based, but I do think it is moving us in the right direction because we do have real needs out there. We need to identify those needs in the workplace. If we need to fill those with immigrants, we need to give business an opportunity to do that. On the other hand, probably more important than anything is we must make sure we have accountability in the system so we know who is coming into the country and for what purpose; that is, they want to have jobs or they want to be Americans. We don't want people coming into this country because they are terrorists and they want to destroy our society. We don't want people coming into this country because they are part of a drug cartel or they are smuggling weapons--in or out. We do need to secure our borders. I think that is the primary thing we need to accomplish. There are provisions in this bill that make me believe our borders will be more secure than as a result of the previous legislation--certainly more secure than what we are seeing today on our borders.

I do, however, have a number of concerns with the bill. To address one of those concerns, I introduced amendment No. 1189, which is my amendment that Senator Cornyn called up, and that refers to the supplemental schedule for Zs. This section, in my point of view, is a great inequity in the bill because it rewards lawbreakers over law abiders.

Ironically, this inequity is in the same section of the bill that rewards would-be immigrants based on merit. The only thing that breaking the law should merit, in my view, is jail time.

To be clear, I strongly support curbing chain migration and moving our system to one based on merit. However, I believe all applicants under the merit-based system should be on a level playing field.

By now, most of us are familiar with the bill's merit-based system that awards points to immigrants based on criteria such as employment, education, and knowledge of English.

What many may not know is the enormous advantage the bill's point system gives to people who have violated our immigration laws relative to people who are seeking to enter this country legally. I am referring to the so-called supplemental schedule for Zs. This separate schedule awards up to 50 bonus points, points that are not available to people who have never broken our immigration laws, to holders of Z visas seeking permanent status.

Holders of Z visas are, by definition, lawbreakers. In fact, this bill specifically requires that an alien prove he or she broke the law in order to even be eligible for the Z visas. In effect, this supplemental schedule rewards people who entered this country illegally. Worse yet, it disadvantages other qualified people who seek to enter this country legally.

The bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is that the United States benefits from a workforce that has diverse skills, experience, and training. I happen to agree. I have stated that before. I am simply not convinced that a history of breaking the law contributes to this goal more than education and experience. My amendment simply strikes the special schedule that makes people who have violated our immigration laws eligible for points that others are not eligible for. I strike that provision.

I just strike that provision so it puts everyone on a level playing field. Visa holders would, however, still be eligible, up to their 100 points we provided in there under the regular schedule--the exact same number as anybody else.

We should not reward those who have broken the law, and we certainly should not punish those who have abided by the law. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment when it comes up for a vote.

Now, I have other amendments I very much would like to put forth. I understand that if I were to call them up at this particular point in time, I would put my colleague from Colorado in a terrible position, that he would have to object to my amendment when I ask unanimous consent to call it up. I don't want to do that. But what I do want to do is I want to talk about these particular amendments for a moment. Even though they have been introduced, I am not going to have an opportunity to call them up. I think these amendments are important provisions that would add to the bill in a positive way.

One amendment I have is number 1187. Obviously I am not going to have a chance to call it up today. This particular amendment addresses the issue of identity theft and tries to improve the legislation at hand by protecting the identity of hard-working Americans, which is of the utmost importance to me.

By way of background, this identity theft issue was called to my attention when we had some identity thefts that were pretty rampant in northern Colorado, close to where I live in Greeley, and I have discovered it is a rampant problem throughout the country.

Now, again, I commend the drafters of the bill for including my proposal to allow for information sharing between the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security in the current bill. I had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, I had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Gutierrez, and I had an opportunity to meet with my colleagues, including my colleague from Colorado, on this most important issue. I think that including that provision in there where we have now information sharing between Social Security and Homeland Security in the bill is going to be very helpful for us to identify identity theft. If anything else, the real victims in this are people who get their ID stolen, and it is a price they pay for the rest of their lives. It tracks with them all the way until they are receiving their Social Security benefits. So it was a critical first step to get this provision in the bill so that we can address the issue of identity theft and help many innocent victims.

Contributing to the problem is the fact that under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with other Government agencies. After 9/11, one of our stated purposes was to break down the walls between the various agencies. Well, here we are. We find there is one that is remaining, between Social Security and Homeland Security. The bill addresses this issue. Going forward, when we find two names on the same Social Security number, Social Security can contact Homeland Security and say: Look, this is a number which has come to us, and we suspect fraud because we have two names on the same number. Then when the employer now calls in to check with Homeland Security about a Social Security number, they can say: Well, we have problems with this particular number. We think this could be an illegal immigrant, and we think you need to further check it out, and we will help you check it out.

Now, this is sort of the program which was in place when we had the raids on Swift & Company in Greeley, CO. But I will talk a little bit more about that later.

According to the Federal Trade Commission 2006 database, victims' identification has been misused to obtain credit cards, bank accounts, loans, and a long list of other things, including employment fraud. The current national average of employment fraud is 14 percent of all reported identity theft occurrences. Nationally, my home State of Colorado ranks sixth in overall identity theft. Seventeen percent of reported cases involve employment fraud, by the way. Massachusetts ranks 22nd, Pennsylvania 19th, and the FTC designated Arizona as the No. 1 State for identity theft. An estimated 39 percent--almost 40--of those reports involve employment fraud.

That is why it is very important that we address this problem which came up when we had the raid on Swift & Company because what was happening with Swift & Company is they were working with Homeland Security to do what they call a basic pilot. So whenever anybody came in to Swift & Company and asked for a job, their employment application information was sent to Homeland Security. Homeland Security reviewed it and said: That is fine, go ahead and hire them, Swift & Company. Then Swift & Company goes and hires them. Then those very same people they were supposed to have cleared as legal immigrants, they arrested them for being here illegally. Now, if the Federal agencies cannot enforce our immigration laws, how can we expect the employers to comply with the current law? That is why my proposal is so very important. It is important to put sound measures in place now to uncover this identity theft and to prevent further damage to these innocent victims.

Getting back to my amendment at issue today, Amendment 1187--I have not called it up, just introduced it, and I am not sure I am going to get a vote on it. It adds to the list of credentials needed to obtain a Z visa. It is an additive to what is already in this bill.

The underlying bill requires applicants for Z visas to submit a variety of personal information, such as their name and date of birth. My amendment will add one more piece of information that will offer peace of mind to all who have fallen victim to identify theft. It requires the Z visa applicant to disclose all past names and Social Security numbers they have used in their work in the United States.

This will create a documented record of compromised identities. Failure to provide this information will jeopardize the applicant's ability to obtain a Z visa. My amendment would permit Government agencies to share information with other agencies. These agencies may then notify the rightful assignee, alerting the victim that their identity was compromised, allowing the victim to repair their standing with Government agencies and finance and credit, and finally returning a sense of personal security and integrity.

So I think it is important that we address this issue. We must do everything possible to end identity theft. I look

forward to working with my colleagues. I hope I will have an opportunity to call up this amendment so we can vote on it, so we can make it a part of this particular bill, because it is an important aspect of identity theft that is simply not addressed in the bill. I think it adds to what we are trying to do in the bill. I am disappointed that I am not going to be able to move forward on this.

Amendment No. 1188

Now, Mr. President, I also have another amendment, 1188. Again, that has been introduced. This is an amendment which I have put at the desk which would help prevent further accrual of Social Security benefits by unauthorized workers. Currently, the Social Security Administration does not have real-time information relating to the eligibility of an alien to engage in employment in the United States. Consequently, someone working in the United States on an expired visa continues to accrue Social Security benefits for their unauthorized work.

My amendment, 1188, would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to notify the Commissioner of Social Security when he or she grants, renews, or revokes authority to engage in employment. It then prohibits the Social Security Administration from counting work during that time if an individual, if not a citizen or a national, is unauthorized to work in the United States.

In summary, this amendment simply facilitates the sharing of existing information among Government agencies, again to prevent fraud. It is forward-looking in nature. It does not look back. It does nothing to upset the bill's delicate balance. It is simply a better way of doing things moving forward.

So those are some of the issues I have concern about. I am disappointed again that we have put a limit on amendments. They are meaningful amendments and would add to what would be viewed, I think by most Members of the Senate, as positive in nature in trying to help secure this country's borders, to help protect individuals from identity theft and break down the barriers we have or the firewalls we have between various agencies.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution today that will designate September 25 as National First Responder Appreciation Day. I am pleased to be joined by my good friends and colleagues, Senators McCain, Casey, Cochran, Enzi, Stevens, Lindsey Graham, Craig and Chambliss.

The contributions that our Nation's 1.1 million firefighters, 670,000 police officers and over 890,000 emergency medical professionals make in our communities are familiar to us all. We see the results of their efforts every night on our TV screens and read about them everyday in the paper. From recent tornados in the Southeast and wildfires in the West, the tragic events at Virginia Tech, and the wrath of Hurricane Katrina, our ``first responders'' regularly risk their lives to protect property, uphold the law and save the lives of others.

While performing their jobs many first responders have made the ultimate sacrifice. Over 100 firefighters are killed in the line of duty every year. Tragically in 2006, 145 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty as well. And though many might not think a career in the emergency medical services, EMS, is dangerous, EMS workers actually have an occupational fatality rate that is comparable with that of firefighters and police officers.

Yet to recognize our first responders only for their sacrifices would be to ignore the everyday contributions that they make in communities throughout America. In addition to battling fires, firefighters perform important fire prevention and public education duties, like teaching our children how to be ``fire safe.'' Police officers don't simply arrest criminals, they actively prevent crime and make our neighborhoods safer and more livable. And if we or our loved ones experience a medical emergency, EMTs are there at a moment's notice to provide life-saving care.

In many ways, our first responders embody the very best of the American spirit. With charity and compassion, these brave men and women regularly put the well-being of others before their own, oftentimes at great personal risk. Through their actions they have become heroes to many. Through their example they are role models to all of us.

While various cities and towns have recognized the contributions made by their local first responders by declaring a ``first responder day,'' there exists no national day to honor and thank these courageous men and women. The time has come to give our first responders the national day of appreciation that they deserve.

Designating September 25th as National First Responder Appreciation day provides an opportunity for this institution, and the people of the United States, to honor first responders for their contributions, sacrifices and dedication to public service.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting passage of this worthwhile resolution.

Mr. President, I would like to have an opportunity to make some comments, if I might. Traditionally, we have always alternated this back and forth.

Probably about 15 minutes.

Fine.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman for his leadership on the Budget Committee and willingness to work with Republicans, to a certain degree, and I do appreciate his leadership.

We have a difference of opinion. I think these are reflected in the budget. I also recognize the ranking Republican, Judd Gregg. I think he has it just right. I would like to associate myself with many of the comments he made on the Senate floor because I agree with him.

If you have been listening to this debate and what the Democrats on the other side of the aisle have been saying, you may be getting as confused as I am. You know, I listened to this debate, and it seems as though they want the argument all ways--at least four ways.

They want to argue that they are not increasing taxes but yet are increasing taxes. They want to argue that they are holding down spending, but yet they want to take credit for all of this spending they put in the budget. So I think that is confusing.

I think we are missing an opportunity to do more for future generations than what is reflected in this budget. In fact, I think this is a budget that is a disaster in the making for future generations. It took the majority Democrats only 4 months and 15 days to figure out how to raise taxes. Now, they say they are not raising taxes. But taxes are going to go up because of inaction on their part, because they make the rules and the procedures around here in the Senate so complicated that there is not going to be an opportunity for those of us who want to see taxes held down to make that effort without these very high hurdles.

They want to ignore the fact that the U.S. economy has done well; it has grown and prospered over the past several years with the creation of 7.9 million new jobs and tax revenues that have outpaced projections by $300 billion.

The economy has experienced smooth sailing, frankly. Now Democrats are about to pass a huge, bloated budget that will act as a heavy anchor weighing down our economy.

The Democrats do not want to recognize the fact that after we reduced taxes the economy grew. We have had this argument over the years in the Budget Committee, and with the now majority leader on the Budget Committee who does not want to recognize that when you are reducing taxes you actually have an opportunity to increase revenues, particularly when we start with a high tax rate.

If we look at what has happened with taxes before, the President came through with his economic growth packages, he had two growth packages, our economy was struggling, and we just finished, in 2001, what we call--the high-tech bubble had burst, the economy was regressing, and we had the 9/11 catastrophe. We had the war on terrorism. We moved into a time when we had a record hurricane year.

But despite all of those negative impacts, the economy did well. I can recall during the last part of the 1970s when we had high energy prices and we had a struggling economy. Remember, we got into double- digit inflation, double-digit unemployment. We referred to all of this as the misery index because our economy wasn't doing too well.

Most of that was attributed to the fact that energy prices were so high. But look at today and look where energy prices are and look at how the economy continues to grow, which I think speaks to the strength of the economic package that the President has put in place with the help of a Republican Congress.

What we did was reduce taxes in those areas where we thought we could really focus, particularly targeting the small business sector of our economy. That is where innovation occurs. That is where you can expect the greatest economic growth when you have right tax policy.

One of the things we did that really targeted the small businesses was we increased the amount of expenditures that they could write off so that small businesses make investments in their

business, maybe it was computers, maybe it was--if they were in construction maybe it was a Bobcat. But it impacted all segments of small business.

The economy responded, and it is still responding. But this particular plan we have before us--and that is what this budget is, it is a plan. It is a plan that is put together by the House and the Senate. It is not anything that is signed by the President. It is an agreement.

So, now, in 4 months and 15 days, they have had this plan that lays out a pact to increase taxes.

It increases discretionary spending at least $205 billion over the President's request over 5 years. The debt increases $2.5 trillion over 5 years, and we don't do anything on mandatory spending. We had several hearings in the Budget Committee about the problem with entitlements, which is mandatory spending--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-- and how we needed to control future obligations in those programs because they are getting ready to bankrupt the country. We had testimony in front of the Budget Committee that said the way those programs are currently designed is unsustainable. It is completely ignored in this 5-year plan that has been put out on how they are going to grow the economy. I think it is headed in the wrong direction. It is going to be a disaster for future generations.

The Democratic budget contemplates a huge tax increase. The argument was made from the other side, as always, if you want to increase taxes, you blame the rich because they are making too much money. But everybody ignores the fact that the top 20 percent of taxpayers are paying 85 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent is actually getting a refund, a handout from the Government. It is easy to point to the wealthy and say: They are not paying enough. But in reality, they are already paying a lot. If we allow the Republican tax plan to expire without taking any future action, the result is going to be a negative impact on our economy. I believe that.

This budget spends $23 billion over what the President suggested as far as discretionary spending for 2008, totaling about $82 billion over 2007. The budget spends $205 billion over the President's discretionary spending over 5 years. Entitlement spending grows unchecked by $416 billion over 5 years. It creates reserve funds. We did create a few reserve funds, but we didn't create 23 reserve funds, which is an opportunity to build a shield of smoke and mirrors, which allows spending to go on unchecked. I am concerned about the opportunity we are giving various committees to spend.

If we do this right, we can do a lot of things that will restrain spending, will hold down taxes, and actually provide for future generations of Americans. I am disappointed we haven't done more in those areas. In fact, we haven't done anything but move in the wrong direction.

I had an amendment I offered in the committee and on the floor that said: Let's look at the ineffective programs. This President, to his credit, has put together what they call the PART Program. PART goes into the various agencies and evaluates their programs. Then they rate them. Was it effective? Was it moderately effective? Is it ineffective, or have they made no effort at all? You can easily look into these programs where they didn't make an effort at all to try and establish a process where there is accountability in the way they spend tax dollars, or they can go into a program that was rated ineffective. I said: You know, if we go ahead and reduce spending by 25 percent on some of those ineffective programs, in the first year of this budget we could save about $4 billion, which is minimal, when you think about it, out of a total budget of $2.9 trillion. Over 5 years, that would amount to about a $17 billion reduction in debt, a relatively easy thing we could have done. We ignored that opportunity, as we ignored the opportunity to do something about entitlement spending. We talked about it and talked about it. This could have been a budget that actually called for some action. We have ignored all the recommendations of the hearings and gone ahead with business as usual--increasing taxes, increasing spending.

The Democratic budget literally ignored the entitlement crisis. They have done some manipulation so they can talk four ways about how they are not increasing taxes but in reality they are, about how they are holding down spending but in reality they are increasing spending much more than what Republicans are supporting. It would have been interesting to have seen how they would have created a budget during those 3 years the chairman of the Budget Committee criticized Republicans, when we had 9/11, we had the Internet bubble break, and we had record hurricanes. We had a lot of pressure on our budget. As Republicans, we did a good job. Those were tough times. This budget and these economic times are much better. This was an opportunity for us to do something to hold down spending. We could have done something to hold down the taxes so we could sustain our phenomenal economic growth.

Let me talk about one other issue. If you notice, when the Democrats talked about spending, they talked about it as a percent of gross domestic product. That is an easy argument to make. This economy has done so well that the gross domestic product is growing at a phenomenal rate. So you can increase spending at a phenomenal rate, and your figures can still look good. When you talk about spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, you are not talking about what is happening in the budget. You need to talk about it in terms of real figures from year to year and within the 5-year window of this budget. When you do, we have a tax increase of $736 billion. You have increased discretionary spending by $205 billion, debt by $2.5 trillion, and done nothing as far as entitlement spending is concerned.

I will not vote for this budget. I encourage my colleagues to join me. We can do better. This budget forgets about future generations, and we should do better on their behalf. That is the reason I came to the Congress, because I believed it was important that we eliminate deficit spending.

By the way, he talks about eliminating deficit spending by 2012. If we worked on it, I think we could have gotten rid of deficit spending in 2 years, with the current rate of growth and current incoming revenue, if we had only made the effort. But this budget ignores that effort. We continue to spend and tax as usual.

I am disappointed in this particular budget. We could have done much better. I think it is a disaster for future young Americans. Hopefully, this budget will not pass, and we can have another budget that deals more seriously with the future of this country and the future of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am proud to co-sponsor legislation that

will designate Rocky Mountain National Park as ``wilderness.''

This legislation will protect an area that was formed millions of years ago when massive glaciers carved an impressive landscape. The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that it remains unchanged in years to come.

Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in the long history of the Park. As a fifth generation Coloradan and someone who grew up in the shadow of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is an honor to have worked on this bill. With the introduction of this legislation we continue to follow an important wilderness tradition in Colorado.

Colorado and its representatives have long played an important role in the development of Wilderness in our Nation. This dates back to the original Wilderness Act. Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who represented Colorado's 4th Congressional District and chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, played a pivotal role in creating the Nation's wilderness system with the 1964 Wilderness Act. From the inception of the original Wilderness Act through the continued development of wilderness in Colorado one thing has remained the same: a commitment to working together to find compromise and solutions that work for everyone.

The principle of compromise has held true from the Colorado National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 to the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act in 2000, and it is now true with the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. I am especially proud of the legislation that my colleagues and I have introduced because it will preserve the natural elements of the Park while protecting water, the West's most valuable resource.

In a time when wells are being shut down just east of the park, the protection of water is more important than ever, and it is vital to preserving the agricultural heritage of this area. I am extremely pleased that we have been able protect both wilderness and water.

I would like to thank everyone that has been involved in the development of this bill, my colleagues in the United States Congress, the local officials that communicated with our offices, and the private citizens that shared their thoughts with us on the creation of this bill. I would specifically like to recognize former Senators Bill Armstrong and Hank Brown, and former Representatives Joe Johnson and David Skaggs. We would not be introducing this legislation today without these efforts.

The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that Americans, now and in the future, have the ability to enjoy the Park.

Mr. President, today I am proud to co-sponsor legislation that

will designate Rocky Mountain National Park as ``wilderness.''

This legislation will protect an area that was formed millions of years ago when massive glaciers carved an impressive landscape. The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that it remains unchanged in years to come.

Today marks the beginning of a new chapter in the long history of the Park. As a fifth generation Coloradan and someone who grew up in the shadow of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is an honor to have worked on this bill. With the introduction of this legislation we continue to follow an important wilderness tradition in Colorado.

Colorado and its representatives have long played an important role in the development of Wilderness in our Nation. This dates back to the original Wilderness Act. Congressman Wayne Aspinall, who represented Colorado's 4th Congressional District and chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, played a pivotal role in creating the Nation's wilderness system with the 1964 Wilderness Act. From the inception of the original Wilderness Act through the continued development of wilderness in Colorado one thing has remained the same: a commitment to working together to find compromise and solutions that work for everyone.

The principle of compromise has held true from the Colorado National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 to the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act in 2000, and it is now true with the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act. I am especially proud of the legislation that my colleagues and I have introduced because it will preserve the natural elements of the Park while protecting water, the West's most valuable resource.

In a time when wells are being shut down just east of the park, the protection of water is more important than ever, and it is vital to preserving the agricultural heritage of this area. I am extremely pleased that we have been able protect both wilderness and water.

I would like to thank everyone that has been involved in the development of this bill, my colleagues in the United States Congress, the local officials that communicated with our offices, and the private citizens that shared their thoughts with us on the creation of this bill. I would specifically like to recognize former Senators Bill Armstrong and Hank Brown, and former Representatives Joe Johnson and David Skaggs. We would not be introducing this legislation today without these efforts.

The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that Americans, now and in the future, have the ability to enjoy the Park.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 982.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman, Senator Kennedy, and the ranking Republican, Senator Enzi, for the bipartisan way in which they have worked in the committee, of which I am a new member. It is the HELP Committee, standing for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I appreciate the opportunity to have offered this amendment in committee, as well the opportunity to offer it on the floor. It is a very important committee.

The bill, coming out of committee, can withstand some improvement. I know both Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy have sat down and made many changes that I think will help relieve some of the concerns we have about the bill. That is now in the form of a managers' amendment which is before the Senate.

The issue I remain concerned about is an issue that was in the original bill.

It remains in the bill, in the managers' amendment, and that is an amendment to the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act passed in 1997. This is an incentive program we put in place for the last decade that says to the pharmaceutical industry that if you would put some effort into getting children's medications, pediatric medications properly labeled for the market, then we will give you, in effect, an extension of 6 months on your patent rights. This has been an extremely successful program. For the life of me, I don't understand why the bill's sponsors feel it is important to put this provision in the bill.

This is a chart that reflects the drug studies that have been completed for kids, which equates to more drugs available for pediatricians to use in treating childhood diseases. As one can see, the red square on the chart is with no incentives, and very little effort was being made. But when the 6-month exclusivity provision was provided in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, we can see how dramatic the increase was and how the marketplace responded to this incentive.

In my view, we should not be removing or reducing the incentive for any pharmaceutical company to invest in children. Right now, with what the current managers' amendment has in it, it takes the 6-month exclusivity and reduces it to 3 months, and it has it applied to those that are referred to as the blockbuster drugs. In my view, I think we need to make sure everybody understands how very important this program is. If we go messing with it, we are going to reduce the incentives that are in it that have been working so well.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act allows the FDA to grant drug sponsors pediatric exclusivity. This is 6 months of additional market exclusivity--as I said, an extension basically of the patent rights--in exchange for conducting and submitting reports on pediatric drug studies. Current law is working. There is no reason I see to change significantly a program that is working.

The goal of the program is to develop additional health information on the use of such drugs in pediatric populations so they can be administered safely and effectively to children. This goal is reflected on this chart as being reached. Also, using pediatric research and development legislation to attack large pharmaceutical companies, in my view, is an abuse of power at the expense of kids. The data shows pediatric legislation has resulted in a substantial increase in pediatric prescribing information on the labels of those products, which have fulfilled the requirements necessary to be granted the pediatric exclusivity extension.

Here is what the GAO study on the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act has said about how the program has been working for the last decade. This study was issued on March 22 of 2007, so it is a current evaluation, and here is what they say:

Prior to enactment of the Food and Drug Administration

Modernization Act of 1997, which first established incentives

for conducting pediatric drug studies in the form of

additional market exclusivity, few drugs were studied for

pediatric use.

Very few were done, as reflected on the chart.

As a result, there was a lack of information on optimal

dosage, possible side effects, and the effectiveness of drugs

for pediatric use. Almost all the drugs--about 87 percent--

that have been granted pediatric exclusivity under the Best

Pharmaceuticals for Children Act have had important labeling

changes as a result of pediatric drug studies conducted under

this Act.

As a result, exclusivity is working. In fact, it is working so well that, in my view, with increased exclusivity we may have even had more research and development in the area of pediatric pharmaceuticals. But that issue is for another day.

My amendment doesn't request an increase in what has been working. We merely ask that we return in this piece of legislation to that exclusivity-linked period, which is 6 months, which has been working so very well under current law.

Some Members want to try to damage the blockbuster drug companies by reducing the exclusivity for those businesses, but in reality the ones who are really being hurt are our kids because we take away the number of choices a pediatrician has in providing drug therapy for those kids who could be seriously ill.

I ask my colleagues to support me in my amendment and to return us to the 6-month exclusivity and away from the 3-month exclusivity period we currently have in the managers' amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming, who is managing the time, has granted permission for me to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I forgot to ask unanimous consent that the following individuals be added as cosponsors on my amendment: Senator Bond, Senator Hatch, and Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, I would like to respond to this concern about drug companies investing relatively little and having huge returns. That doesn't apply to every drug.

Obviously, when you are developing a product for the market, there will be some that work out rather easily and the development costs may not be too much. But there are other drugs that require a substantial amount of work and analysis, and a considerable amount of thought has to go into the labeling. When those costs get high and when you hit those, the profit margin is not so large. I hate to see us pick out a few companies that may have had a windfall and then punish our children and say we are going to take away an incentive that has resulted in 80 percent of the children's drugs that have come to the market being approved and getting the proper licensing they require.

In my view, we pick out a few outrageous circumstances and then we try and take away an incentive that has been working so well for us.

My point, again, is why mess with that incentive when it is working so very well? As I had indicated here on the charts, we had such tremendous results in getting children's pediatric drugs to the market. This allows the pediatrician more choice in selecting therapies for their patients. It means better medicine. I also believe that the more products you have on the market, the more competition you have, and the more competition you have, that then holds down the price of drugs. What we need to do is rely on the markets to control the price of drugs, to control supply. I hate to see the Government or this Congress try to apply any kind of artificial parameters that somehow or other would mean we would have fewer drugs for the treatment of our kids and their ailments.

I yield the floor.

I understand I have 10 minutes allocated to me. I would like to take 4 minutes and allocate those to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing the fine work that Senator Dodd has done in the area of children and children's health. He recognized one decade ago how important it was to have incentives in place for drug companies to properly label drugs so they are available and a physician has some guidance when they are putting therapy out.

I particularly thank Dr. Coburn for bringing a message to the floor that reflects his practical experience, in a period of time when there weren't a lot of drugs specifically labeled for children, to help him establish the proper dosage and to be aware of the side effects that may happen to various age groups. Also, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his comments.

I think I bring a certain degree of practical experience to this debate as a veterinarian. We are frequently put in a position where we have to recommend drugs for therapy without having had research done. You have to extrapolate what you think might happen. The drug companies will do research on those products on which they can make a profit. I am talking about veterinary prescription drugs right now. There is a plethora of medications available in the human market. Many times, in treating eye conditions or some exotic problem in a species where there isn't much of a market, we have to take the scientific literature that we know, and perhaps we know what the reaction may be in humans or maybe in some other species, where the drug company has done the research to reflect what the adequate dosage is, and we extrapolate that and predict as best we can what the reaction and how effective that drug may be at a certain dosage.

I think our children's health is too valuable to put a physician in a position where they have to make those sorts of subjective evaluations. I happen to believe the incentives we put in place a decade ago are working. That belief is substantiated by people who have looked at the program--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act--and what happened as a result of that. I am not the only one who believes that. We had a study by the GAO, whose responsibility it is to look at programs to see whether they are working. They give this program a strong A. It is working. I don't think we ought to be messing with a program that has worked. Three months may be adequate, but there are a lot of other drugs that we have to still get on the market.

Several years back, during the Reagan administration--and it might have been President Reagan who said it--there was a general belief in Washington that if it is making a profit, let's tax it; if it is working, let's regulate it to death. Here is a program that is working because we have backed off on the rules and regulations. I don't think we ought to be making a decision, in light of the work that has yet to be done in moving pediatric medications to the market, to mess with this. Maybe 10 years from now it might be even more appropriate; I don't know. This is, to a certain degree, subjectivity. I think we have a huge need in making sure we have adequate medications available to treat children.

I agree with many of my colleagues that we should not be messing with a program that works, and we need to support this. I also wish to point out that this doesn't have an impact. There is not a budget point of order on this particular amendment. It doesn't add to the deficit of this country. So it is a program we can move forward on, without increasing the cost to the Federal Government.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this most important amendment because it is very important, it is important to the practitioner who is trying to provide the best care that scientists will allow him to provide to patients--in this case, children. If we don't keep these choices available for the practitioner, then what happens is he doesn't have the options he should have to give the best care to our children?

So for our children's health in the future, I think we need to pass this amendment and go back to current law, which has been working so very well for us today.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.