Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Fair Deal for Volunteers Act. In today's economic climate, Americans need relief from sky-rocketing oil and gas prices. This applies to everyone, including people who engage in much-needed volunteer work. My bill will provide immediate relief for volunteers serving our elderly, poor, frail, and at-risk Americans. It gives the Internal Revenue Service authority to change the mileage rate--currently set by statute at 14 cents per mile--for calculating the deductible cost of operating a vehicle for charitable purposes. We can't let an out-of-date mileage rate exacerbate the pinch at the pump for volunteers who selflessly provide so many vital goods and services in every community across America. I'm pleased that the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, and my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, are original cosponsors of this bill and I thank them for their support. The Internal Revenue Code does not fix a rate for individuals who are required to use their own vehicle for work, or for individuals taking a mileage deduction for moving purposes. The IRS is able to increase the deduction amount for these purposes to reflect the current economic climate and dramatically higher fuel prices. This is exactly what the IRS recently did. As of July, the IRS modified the standard mileage rates for computing the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, medical, or moving expenses. The revised standard mileage rate for business purposes increased from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents. For medical and moving expenses, the IRS increased the rate from 19 cents per mile to 27 cents per mile. I think the Nation's volunteers who travel on behalf of charitable organizations deserve an increase in their mileage rate, too. My bill gives the IRS flexibility in setting the rate so that volunteers for charitable organizations could be given the same tax benefit accruing for moving, medical, and business expenses. In today's climate of increasing food and fuel prices, this bill will help relieve some of the pressure on charitable organizations and their volunteers. Take Meals on Wheels, for example. This organization delivers nutritious meals and other nutrition services to men and women who are elderly, homebound, disabled, frail, or otherwise at-risk. The services Meals on Wheels provides significantly improve the recipients' quality of life and health, and often help to postpone institutionalization. Over the past year, there has been nearly a 20 percent increase in fuel and food prices, coupled with reduced government funding and fewer donations across the country. Nearly 60 percent of the estimated 5,000 programs that operate under the auspices of the Meals on Wheels Association of America have lost volunteers, in large part because it is too expensive for the volunteers to drive back and forth. Nearly half the programs have eliminated routes or consolidated meal services. About 38 percent of the programs have switched to delivering frozen meals, and about 30 percent are cutting personal visits from 5 days a week to one. In Maryland, the Central Maryland Meals on Wheels has experienced an increase of 7 percent in food costs and suppliers are charging higher delivery fees. The cost to fill up the vans with gas has increased. Fuel costs averaged $72,538.70 in fiscal year 2007; this year, the costs have jumped to $86,790.63. This is an organization with volunteers serving over 3,100 elderly, disabled, frail and at-risk Marylanders. Its volunteers deserve relief from high gas prices just as much as people who use their car for work or for medical purposes or for moving. Throughout the United States, Meals on Wheels served over 3 million people and more than 250 million meals in fiscal year 2006. This is just one of thousands of charitable organizations. We need to encourage and support the Meals on Wheels volunteers and all other volunteers who need their cars to help their neighbors and communities. The Fair Deal for Volunteers Act will do just that, and I hope my colleagues will support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, our vote today on H.R. 6331 carries real and immediate consequences for people who depend on Medicare. Action on this legislation is mandatory now because, 8 days ago, the temporary fix we passed at the end of last year expired. The cuts are in effect. Next Tuesday, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services begins paying claims for services rendered after June 30, 2008, payments will be cut unless we pass this measure. Because I return home every evening to my State, I interact frequently with Maryland providers. They cannot sustain a nearly 11- percent cut in their Medicare payments; they and many of their colleagues will stop accepting new Medicare patients unless we pass this bill. The pending cuts are the result of a flawed system that pegs provider reimbursement to the growth of the Nation's GDP. It was created by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act as a way to rein in dramatic growth in Medicare spending on physician services. But this system, known as SGR, has not worked as intended. In fact, every year since 2001, Congress has had to act to prevent the cuts from going into effect. We know that the SGR formula must be repealed. I have introduced legislation in past years to eliminate SGR and replace it with a system that reimburses based on the actual reasonable costs of providing care. The bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the House, H.R. 6331, provides another temporary fix through December 31, 2009. That is sufficient time for the next Congress, working with a new administration and the provider community, to develop a new mechanism. But although ``doctor fix'' is the shorthand often used, this bill is far more than that, and our failure to pass it has repercussions far beyond physician offices. Another provision that expired on June 30 is the exceptions process for outpatient rehabilitation services. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act imposed dollar limits of $1,500 on Part B therapy services--one cap for physical and speech-language therapy, and another for occupational therapy. They are adjusted annually for inflation and are now at $1,810. I was a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee at the time. Congress held no hearings on this issue to examine how the caps might affect patient care. The authors of the provision had no policy justification for imposing them, and the dollar amount was arbitrary. These caps were imposed for purely budgetary reasons. They were a crude budget-cutting measure designed to deliver savings--$1.7 billion over 5 years. This misguided policy ignored clinical needs and it restricted care for the most frail patients--such as those who are recovering from stroke or hip fracture, and those with multiple injuries in a given year. And because the dollar limits are not adjusted for cost variations across the country, seniors in high cost areas reach their caps even sooner. The University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center was the first such unit in the Nation. It is a world-renowned leader in caring for critically injured patients. They see patients with extensive fractures, severe burns, spinal cord and brain injuries, and other debilitating conditions. These patients require lengthy therapy sessions to restore basic functioning. They cannot be rehabilitated for $1,810 a year. The therapy caps actually went into effect once before, on January 1, 1999, and they had serious consequences for beneficiaries. By April, many patients in skilled nursing facilities had exceeded the limits and were unable to receive necessary care. The administration recognized the danger of this provision, stating: The limits will reduce the amount of therapy services paid for by Medicare. The patients most affected are likely to be those with diagnoses such as stroke and amputation, where the number of therapy visits needed by a patient may exceed those that can be reimbursed by Medicare under the statutory limits. That year, I joined the now-junior Senator from Nevada, John Ensign, to introduce a bill to repeal the caps. We had significant bipartisan support and at the end of 1999, Congress delayed implementation for 2 years. Since that time, Congress has acted several times to prevent the caps from taking effect. In 2006, Congress created an exceptions process that would allow beneficiaries needing care above the statutory caps to receive those services. It was the right thing to do. This process has worked well. Medicare is saving money and patients are getting needed care. In February, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a study concluding that: The exception process that allows beneficiaries who need therapy to get that therapy, even if the cost goes beyond the cap, has worked to control cost growth. This study reveals that from Calendar Year 2004 through 2006, although the total number of therapy users continued to increase by 3.5 percent the overall expenditures actually decreased by 4.7 percent. This suggests that the exceptions process in CY 2006 may have satisfied to some extent the Congressional intent to assure access to medically necessary services while controlling the growth in expenditures. The CMS study shows that the exceptions process works to control costs, yet still assures access for the more than 4.4 million beneficiaries who need additional care. The exceptions process allowed them to get the therapy they need to recover, function optimally, and live more productive lives. It allowed them to learn to cook, clean, and care for themselves after a stroke, to walk correctly and strongly after a hip replacement, and to speak and communicate after cancer surgery. But as of Tuesday, July 1, the process has expired. Section 141 of the bill we are voting on today continues the exceptions process through December 31, 2009. This provision takes up just two lines of the bill. It is a small provision, but it has a major impact on seniors. The story of Steve Kinsey and his patients illustrates why we must pass this bill without further delay. Steve operates Hereford Physical Therapy in Baltimore County. He is anxious to know what the Senate will do this afternoon and so are the seniors he cares for. Steve's practice has about 9,500 patient visits each year, and one-fifth of them are covered by Medicare. He told me about two patients who are waiting for the Senate to act. The first is a 72-year-old gentleman. He is a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic who needs physical therapy to keep up his strength. He qualified through the exceptions process, and so, although he exceeded the $1,810 cap in March, he has been able to receive therapy 2 days every other week to maintain his level of function. The second patient is an 83-year-old woman who had a total knee replacement earlier this year. She received 20 visits and was under the cap, until a few weeks later when she fell and fractured her hip. The cost of her care exceeded the cap 6 weeks ago, but after qualifying through the exceptions process, she has been able to continue treatment. Because of the actions of a few Senators, as of Tuesday, July 1, these two Medicare beneficiaries can no longer receive care. On July 1, CMS told providers: (1), that the exceptions process expired on June 30, 2008; (2), not to submit any claims with the code for exceptions because they will be automatically rejected; (3), that providers can check a CMS Web site to determine the amount of services their patients have received so far this year; and; (4), that patients who have reached the caps can go to an outpatient hospital department for care or pay out-of-pocket. Because the exceptions process was in place for the first 6 months of this year, patients who have already gone beyond the cap--the patients most in need of care--must stop therapy or pay for it themselves. The average charge is about $80 for a 45-minute session. This is wrong. If we do not reinstate the exceptions process as the bill before us would do, these individuals who need more care will be harmed. They received appropriate therapy under appropriate rules, but that does not matter: On July 1, they were effectively cut off from services that 8 days ago they were deemed eligible for. This is unfair and it is harmful. Let's not forget that therapy services are also paid under the Medicare fee schedule, so the 10.6 percent cut will also apply to these services as well. Now, as CMS stated, there is a last resort--to go to the outpatient department of a hospital for additional care. But Steve has learned that the two hospitals near his practice--GBMC and St. Joseph's--are turning away new patients because they don't have the capacity to see them. Because of the shortage of therapists in Maryland and in other States, hospitals are already overloaded. So, Steve has 10 patients who are waiting at home for him to call and say they can come back in for therapy. They have no where else to go for treatment unless they pay out-of-pocket. They can't afford that. Outpatient therapy services are paid under Medicare Part B. The people waiting for Steve's call are seniors who worked hard to qualify for Part A coverage and who are paying premiums for Part B. Working Americans--taxpayers--who do not yet qualify for Medicare, are paying to subsidize Part B premiums. The American people as a whole, not only providers and beneficiaries, should be outraged that a minority of the Senate is preventing us from moving forward on this legislation. The 43 million seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on Medicare deserve a program that meets their health care needs. Our goal should be to ensure that Medicare provides comprehensive, affordable, quality care. The bill also includes important beneficiary improvements. In 1997, I worked in a bipartisan way to add to the Balanced Budget Act the first- ever package of preventive benefits to the traditional Medicare Program. That was 11 years ago. At that time, the members of the Ways and Means Committee recognized what medical professionals had long known--that prevention saves lives and reduces overall health care costs. Preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies are vital tools in the fight against serious disease. The earlier that breast and colon cancer are detected, the greater the odds of survival. For example, when caught in the first stages, the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is 98 percent. But if the cancer has spread, the survival rate drops to 26 percent. If colon cancer is detected in its first stage, the survival rate is 90 percent, but only 10 percent if found when it is most advanced. Seniors are at particular risk for cancer. In fact, the single greatest risk factor for colorectal cancer is being over the age of 50--when more than 90 percent of cases are diagnosed. Sixty percent of all new cancer diagnoses and 70 percent of all cancer-related deaths are in the 65 and older population. Cancer is the leading cause of death among Americans aged 60 to 79 and the second leading cause of death for those over age 80. So preventing cancer is essential to achieving improved health outcomes for seniors. Screenings are crucial in this fight. In addition to improving survival rates, early detection can reduce Medicare's costs. Under Chairman Conrad's leadership on the Budget Committee, we have had fruitful debates about the long-term solvency of Medicare. A more aggressive focus on prevention will help produce a healthier Medicare Program. Medicare will pay on average $300 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is diagnosed after the colon cancer has metastasized, the costs of I care can exceed $58,000. There is no question that these vital screenings can produce better and more cost-effective health care. The 1997 law established place improved coverage for breast cancer screenings, examinations for cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer, diabetes self-management training services and supplies, and bone mass measurement for osteoporosis. Since then, Congress has added screening for glaucoma, cardiovascular screening blood tests, ultrasound screening for aortic aneurysm, flu shots, and medical nutrition therapy services. In addition, in 2003, a Welcome to Medicare Physical examination was added as a one-time benefit for new Medicare enrollees available during the first 6 months of eligibility. But we can only save lives and money if seniors actually use these benefits. Unfortunately, the participation rate for the Welcome to Medicare physical and some of the screenings is very low. I have spoken with primary care physicians across my State of Maryland about this. One problem is the requirement to satisfy the annual deductible and co pays for these services. Most colonoscopies are done in hospital outpatient departments, where their copay is 25 percent or approximately $85. Our seniors have the highest out-of-pocket costs of any age group and they will forgo these services if cost is a barrier. The other barrier to participation is the limited 6-month eligibility period for the one-time physical examination. By the time most seniors become aware of the benefit, the eligibility period has expired. In many other cases, it can take more than 6 months to schedule an appointment for the physical exam and by that time, the patients are no longer eligible for coverage. I have introduced legislation to eliminate the copays and deductibles for preventive services and to extend the eligibility for the Welcome to Medicare physical from 6 months to 1 year. My bill would also eliminate the time consuming and inefficient requirement that Congress pass legislation each time a new screening is determined to be effective in detecting and preventing disease in the Medicare population. It would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add ``additional preventive services'' to the list of covered services. They must meet a three part test: (1) they must be reasonable and necessary for the prevention or early detection of an illness; (2) they must be recommended by the U.S. preventive Services Task Force, and (3) they must be appropriate for the Medicare beneficiary population. H.R. 6331 incorporates several elements of my bill in the very first section. It will waive the deductible for the physical examination, extend the eligibility period from 6 months to 1 year, and allow the Secretary to expand the list of covered benefits. This bill will also help low income seniors by raising asset test thresholds in the Medicare savings programs and targeting assistance to the seniors who most need it. It extends and improves assistance programs for seniors with incomes below $14,040 a year, including the QI program, which pays Part B premiums for low-income seniors who don't qualify for Medicaid. As this Congress continues to make progress toward passing a comprehensive mental health parity bill, this bill provides mental health parity for Medicare beneficiaries, moving their copayments from 50 percent to 20 percent gradually over 6 years. Depression, bipolar disorder, and other mental illnesses are prevalent among seniors, and yet fewer than half receive the treatment they need. This provision will help them get that treatment. It will also ensure that a category of drugs called ``benzodiazepines'' are covered by Medicare Part D. When Part D took effect on January 1, 2006, millions of beneficiaries found that the medicines they took were not covered by the new law. A little-known provision in the bill actually excluded from coverage an entire class of drugs called benzodiazepines. These are anti-anxiety medicines used to manage several conditions, including acute anxiety, seizures, and muscle spasms. The category includes Xanax, Valium, and Ativan. Most are available as generics. The current-law exclusion has led to health complications for beneficiaries, unnecessary complexity for pharmacists, and additional red tape for the States. Beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicaid have had to shoulder the entire cost of these drugs or substitute other less effective drugs. In 2005, I first introduced legislation that would add benzodiazepines to the categories of prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage plans. This provision is essential for our seniors; without it, dual eligibles would have to rely on continued Medicaid coverage for benzodiazepines. Medicare beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicaid will have to continue to pay out-of-pocket for them. For those who cannot afford the expense, their doctors would have to use alternative medicines that may be less effective, more toxic, and more addictive. This is a significant improvement for our seniors who are enrolled in Part D and for the fiscal health of our States. This bill will also help our community pharmacies. I have heard from pharmacies throughout Maryland who cannot receive prompt reimbursement from private plans. This bill requires plans to pay them within 14 days of receiving a clean claim. It also requires plans to update their price lists weekly so that pharmacies have accurate data about what they should be reimbursed. H.R. 6331 is paid for by small reforms to the Medicare Advantage program, in particular to private fee-for-service plans. The nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, has recommended that we equalize payments between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. As we discuss the solvency of the Medicare Program, we must take note that private health plans are not saving the Federal Government money. In fact, they are costing us money. I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee when health plans approached us with an offer. If the Federal Government would pay them 95 percent of what we were spending on the traditional Medicare Program, they would create efficiencies through managed care--efficiencies that they said were lacking in traditional Medicare--that would save the Federal Government billions of dollars each year. They promised to provide enhanced coverage, meaning extra benefits as well as all the services covered by traditional Medicare, for 95 percent of the cost of fee for service. Congress gave them a chance to do just that. Instead, what we saw across the country was cherry-picking of younger, healthier seniors. Each time Congress indicated that it would roll back their overpayments to a more reasonable level, they responded by pulling out of markets. In Maryland, the number of plans declined over a 3-year period from eight to one, abandoning thousands of seniors. Since 2003, when payments were substantially increased, the number of plans has steadily increased as well, but at too high a cost to beneficiaries, taxpayers, and the future of the Medicare Program. Right now, these plans are paid up to 19 percent more than the amount that we would pay if these seniors were in fee-for-service Medicare. Over 10 years, we are overpaying them by more than $150 billion. That is enough money to fund significant valuable improvements in the overall Medicare Program, or to permanently repeal the sustainable growth rate formula. It is time, for the health of the Medicare Program, to pay these plans appropriately. This bill would make small adjustments to these overpayments as well as prohibit the abusive marketing practices, such as cold calling, door-to-door sales, and offering incentives such as free meals, which have led to many seniors being enrolled in private plans without their knowledge or consent. Mr. President, this is a balanced and responsible bill that addresses immediate reimbursement concerns while setting the foundation for a higher quality, more cost-effective Medicare Program. The time to act is now. With the support of just one more Senator, we can pass an urgently needed bill and restore the promise of improved access, adequate reimbursement, low-income assistance, and additional needed benefits to the seniors who depend on Medicare. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, Medical Home Demonstration

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand there is no Republican who will claim the time remaining in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that I may have the time until 11:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to final page of this legislation, H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, FISA, Amendments Act of 2008, if it is not amended to change the retroactive immunity provisions. The President must have the necessary authority to track terrorists, intercept their communications, and disrupt their plots. Our Nation still faces individuals and groups that are determined to do harm to Americans, as well as our interests throughout the world. I have spent many hours at the National Security Agency, which is located in Fort Meade, MD. The men and women of our intelligence agencies are dedicated public servants who are doing a great job on behalf of their country. They are trying to do their jobs correctly, and comply with all applicable laws and regulations. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have received classified briefings about the advice and requests that were given to the telecommunications companies by the U.S. Government. I have seen the opinions of counsel on this issue. I have attended numerous hearings on this issue. Congress must indeed make needed changes to FISA to account for changes in technology and rulings from the FISA Court involving purely international communications that pass through telecommunications routes in the United States. While we have a solemn obligation to protect the American people, we must simultaneously uphold the Constitution and protect our civil liberties. After learning about executive branch abuses in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress passed very specific laws which authorize electronic surveillance. Congress has regularly updated these measures over the years to provide the executive branch the tools it needs to investigate terrorists, while preserving essential oversight mechanisms for the courts and the Congress. FISA requires the Government to seek an order or warrant from the FISA Court before conducting electronic surveillance that may involve U.S. persons. The act also provides for postsurveillance notice to the FISA Court by the Attorney General in an emergency. I am very concerned that the FISA law was disregarded by the administration, and want to ensure that we put an end to this type of abuse. We are a nation of laws and no one is above the law, including the President and Attorney General. The President deliberately bypassed the FISA Court for years with his warrantless wiretapping program--long after any emergency period directly following the 9/11 terrorist attacks--and did not ask Congress to change the FISA statute. In fact, President Bush refused to fully brief Congress on the Terrorist Surveillance Program, TSP, the existence of which was only exposed through a New York Times story. After the story broke, the administration reluctantly agreed to place this program under the supervision of the FISA Court. I do believe that many of the telecommunications companies cooperated with the Government in good faith, and may be entitled to relief. But the FISA statute of 1978 already lays out procedures for the Government to seek a court order and present this order to the telecommunications companies and require their assistance. The 1978 FISA statute also provides certain immunities to telecommunications companies that provide this type of assistance to the Government. The President chose to ignore the FISA statute. If the President did not want to use the FISA statute or wanted to change it, he had the responsibility to come to Congress and ask for that change. He cannot change the law by fiat, or by issuing a Presidential signing statement. Congress must change the law, and the courts must interpret the law. Congress and the courts have the power, and often the responsibility, to disagree with the President, and these co-equal branches have the constitutional checks to override his veto, disapprove of a request for a warrant, or strike down an action as unconstitutional. I will vote against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies. The current bill only authorizes the district court to review whether the companies received written requests from the U.S. Government stating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful by the executive branch. The Court would have to simply accept the executive branch's conclusion that the warrantless wiretapping outside of the FISA statute and without FISA Court approval was legal, which means the executive branch--not the judiciary--gets to decide whether the law was broken. I want the courts to be able to look at what the executive branch is doing. I want the court to protect individual rights. Granting this type of immunity would violate the basic separation of powers. It would also create a dangerous precedent for future administrations and private actors to violate the law, and then seek relief in Congress or from the President through an after-the-fact amnesty or pardon. There was a way to provide the telecommunications companies with appropriate relief. Senator Feinstein's amendment would have allowed the courts to grant relief to the telecommunications companies if they acted reasonably under the reasonable assumption that the Government's requests were lawful. This amendment would have preserved the independent judgment of the judiciary, and preserved the necessary check and balance in our system of government. Unfortunately, the negotiators for this legislation rejected this compromise. I also want to note the improvements made to title I of this legislation, compared to current law and the Senate-passed Intelligence Committee version. I thank the Members of the House and Senate who worked hard on improvements to this legislation, particularly House majority leader Steny Hoyer. Title I is not perfect, but it is does bring the President's program under the FISA statute and FISA Court, and provides for oversight by Congress and the courts. Title I contains a sunset of December 2012 for this legislation. I feel strongly that the next administration should be required to come back and justify these new authorities to Congress. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I believe the only meaningful cooperation we received from the executive branch on this issue occurred when they were facing a sunset and a potential lapsing of their authorities and powers under the statute. Congress will then have time to evaluate how the new law has been implemented, and debate whether further changes are needed. This legislation also requires the inspector general to review compliance with: (1) Targeting and minimization procedures; (2) reverse targeting guidelines; (3) guidelines for dissemination of U.S. person identities; and (4) guidelines for acquisition of targets who turned out to be in the United States. The inspector general review will be provided to the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees of the Senate and House. The public would also be given an unclassified version of these reviews, reports, and recommendations. These reviews will help Congress evaluate the new authorities under the FISA statute, and how the executive branch and the FISA Court are using these new authorities, before the legislation sunsets. Congress can then decide how best to reauthorize this program. The bill strengthens the exclusivity language of FISA and the criminal wiretap laws. Congress is making very clear that these statutes are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance can be legally conducted by the U.S. Government. The bill also removes a troubling attempt to unduly broaden the definition of ``electronic surveillance.'' Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his opinion in the recent Boumediene case on the Guantanamo detainees, stated: ``The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.'' I believe title I should have been strengthened by more effective court review. However, absent the retroactive immunity provisions in title II, I would support the compromise legislation, because it is important for the intelligence community to have the tools it needs. However, I regret that if the retroactive immunity provision remains unchanged in the final legislation, I will vote against the legislation, because of the fundamental problem with that provision. In conclusion Mr. President, shortly we will be considering the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA act. I must tell you, I think it is important that our intelligence community have the tools they need to obtain information from foreign sources. That is what this legislation is about. We need to modernize the FISA law. Communication methods have changed, and we need to give the tools to the intelligence community to meet their modern needs of communication. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I was privy to many hearings we had, some of which were classified, to find out the information as to what we could do. We brought forward legislation that I think was the right legislation that would have given the necessary tools to the intelligence agencies to get information from foreign sources without being burdened by unnecessary court approval and protect the civil liberties of the people of this Nation. Unfortunately, that compromise was rejected. We are in this situation today where we have had major disagreements on how to amend the FISA statutes because of the action of the Bush administration. It is absolutely clear to me that the President went beyond the legal or constitutional authority that he has in doing wiretaps without court approval. I want to make it clear, the men and women who work at our intelligence agencies, many of whom are in Maryland at NSA, are doing a great job. They are trying to do everything that is correct to protect our Nation and do it in the correct manner. It was the Bush administration that went beyond the law. It was the Bush administration that went beyond the Constitution. It is important for us to balance the needs of our community to get information to protect us but also protect the civil liberties with the proper checks and balances in our system. That brings me to H.R. 6304, the legislation that will shortly be before us. Title I is a much better bill than the bill that left the Senate earlier this year. I think this bill has been worked on in a very constructive environment. I compliment not only Senator Rockefeller, who is on the Senate floor, for his hard work on this legislation, I also compliment my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Hoyer, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, for the work he did in bringing us together on a bill that I think is a better bill than the bill that left the Senate. This bill provides for a sunset in 2012. That is important because I find we do not get the attention from the administration on this issue unless they are faced with a deadline from Congress. This will force the next administration to take a look at this legislation and come back to the Congress with modifications or justifications for the continuation of the legislation. I think that is an important improvement. The legislation provides for the inspector general to review the targeting and minimization provisions. The targeting is when a U.S. citizen, perhaps indirectly, is targeted. And the minimization procedures deal with when the intelligence community gets information about an American without court approval, to minimize the use of that information or to seek court approval. Both of those provisions will be reviewed by the inspector general and reports issued back to the Congress with unclassified versions available for public inspection. The FISA Court is strengthened through the compromise that has been reached. Let me make it clear, I would have liked to have seen the Judiciary Committee's bill passed and enacted into law. I think we can still improve title I. But I believe in the legislative process, and I think there has been a fair compromise reached on title I. If title I were before us as an individual action, I would support the compromise because I think it is time to move forward. But there is title II, and title II is the retroactive immunity. It gives retroactive immunity to our telecommunications companies, our telephone companies. They are entitled to some relief. They acted under the urgency of the attacks on our country on September 11 and with the request of the President of the United States. They are entitled for some relief. But this provision goes way too far. It authorizes the executive branch to determine the legality of their actions. In other words, the agency, the President who asked for the information, will determine whether the telephone companies acted properly. It should be the courts. This takes too much away from the judicial branch. It, in my view, compromises the checks and balances that are so important in our constitutional system. We didn't have to be here. I thought Senator Feinstein offered a fair compromise, and I am surprised it was not taken by the negotiators. Senator Feinstein said: Why don't we let the FISA Court make a decision as to whether the telephone companies acted legally? That is a compromise I could have supported. I think it would have been a fair compromise. Unfortunately, that was rejected. Title II is a fundamental flaw in the separation of powers, in the proper protection of civil liberties of the people of this Nation, and a dangerous precedent for future action by this Congress. I will vote to remove or modify title II by the amendments that will be presented later today. I prefer to modify it. As I suggested, I think we have compromises that can work, but I will vote to remove it if there are no other options presented. If we do not modify title II, reluctantly I will not be able to support the compromise legislation that has been presented. I urge my colleagues to try to get this done right. This is an important bill. Unfortunately, it is fatally flawed with the legislation that is before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the spending bill we consider today contains many provisions that address urgent needs facing our Nation's economy, our Nation's families, and our Nation's troops. Among the most important, this legislation extends unemployment insurance benefits at a time where too many Americans are struggling to find jobs, it postpones six Medicaid regulations that would have impeded access to health care for those who need it most, and it provides veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with a new level of educational benefits that will cover the full costs of an education at a State institution. We have an obligation to respond to the growing economic crisis and the needs it has created for American families. People are losing their homes and their jobs, and along with those jobs, their health care. Since March 2007, the number of unemployed has increased by 1.1 million workers. We learned a few weeks ago that the unemployment rate in our country shot up by a half a point, from approximately 5 to 5.5 percent. The Baltimore Sun reported last week that the Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake's Baltimore center has seen an estimated 50 percent increase in clients seeking job placement assistance. This bill includes provisions that respond to these growing needs. It extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for all the Nation's workers. Extending unemployment insurance this way helps families. That is critically important. But it will also help our economy. Economists estimate that every dollar spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic growth. With this extension, we will provide critical stimulus to our slowing economy. The bill also extends a freeze on six Medicaid rules issued by the administration that would have put a tremendous burden on State and local budgets already under pressure and affected access to services for many Marylanders and Americans all around the country. I want to talk about the impact of just two of those rules: one that would eliminate Medicaid coverage of transportation services required by students with special needs and the second that would change benefits for case management services that help some of our most vulnerable individuals access needed medical, social, and educational services. In addition to impeding access to care, these two rules alone would have cost Maryland $67 million in their first year. I was a proud cosponsor of S. 2819 that would have prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from implementing these rules and am glad to see that a moratorium on these rules will become law. I am especially pleased to support provisions that provide veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with a new level of educational benefits that will cover the full costs of an education at a State institution. Some of my colleagues have argued that the benefit is too generous. But this country provided our troops a similar opportunity after World War II. That investment created a generation of great leaders and an economic boom that transformed our country. A new GI bill allows a new generation of brave men and women to fulfill their dreams and adjust to civilian life. Just today a young man came into my office, a Maryland National Guardsman, who had served two tours of duty in Iraq. While overseas on his second tour, he missed the birth of his first child. Now that he is home, he wants to pursue an education. Although interested in a program at my State's flagship institution, the University of Maryland at College Park, the tuition was beyond his means and he enrolled in a community college instead where he will shortly complete his associate's degree program. He came into my office to explain his situation and ask whether there was any way we could help him continue his education at a 4-year institution. That is an opportunity we owe the service men and women, including activated reservists and National Guard, who this administration has asked to serve extended and repeated combat tours. I am so proud that we will live up to that obligation today. But a new GI bill is also a wise investment; it allows our economy to fully benefit from these veterans' talent, leadership, and experience. There are other critical provisions in this bill. It provides funding to address the devastating Midwest flooding and other natural disasters. It addresses critical quality of life and medical care issues for our troops including funding to improve barracks, build VA hospitals and polytrauma centers, and create new military child care centers. It provides the funding we need to implement the 2005 BRAC recommendations. The bill makes critical investments to improve our competitiveness by funding research and other programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Energy. At a time we are all avoiding tomatoes, this bill makes a major investment in food safety by providing additional resources to the Food and Drug Administration. I want to commend my colleagues who refused to give up on these priorities even in the face of initial opposition and a veto threat from our President. I am encouraged that we may have a chance in the near future to act on other domestic priorities including increased energy assistance to low-income Americans facing skyrocketing fuel prices and commercial fishery disaster assistance that could help Maryland's watermen. Former President John F. Kennedy said, ``To govern is to choose.'' In this bill, this Congress is choosing to prioritize those issues that affect Americans' lives every day, our access to jobs, to health care, to education, to safe food. I am proud to offer this bill my support. national synchrotron light source II

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me say to my friend from Missouri, we do see the videos of what is happening in his State with the devastating floods, and the people of Maryland agree with the Senator's statements. We want to make sure FEMA does the right thing. Certainly the Senator is very concerned about the circumstances, and we want to do everything we can to help the people of Missouri and the other States that have been devastated by these floods. It has obviously had a dramatic impact on many lives, and this is when our Nation needs to come together to help those who have been devastated. So the Senator will have our support, and I wanted him to know that. Mr. President, the bill we are considering now in postcloture is the bill the House sent over to us to deal with the housing crisis. I was very encouraged with the vote earlier today, and I hope we are on the verge of passing this much needed legislation so we can work out our differences between the House and the Senate. I know we still have some procedural hurdles we have to overcome, but I hope my colleagues will act quickly so we can complete our work on this very important housing bill. The people of Maryland, the people around the Nation, are hurting today because of what is happening in the housing market. We know it was the housing market that triggered our current economic problems. We know throughout the country there has been a large number of these so- called subprime adjustable rate mortgages that were issued over the last several years, and as a result of the declining housing market and the adjustable rate mortgages and subprime mortgages, we have record numbers of foreclosures around the Nation, including my own State of Maryland. We are not only seeing a record number of foreclosures, we are also seeing circumstances where homeowners' equity in their property is actually negative. That means the money they owe on their mortgage is exceeding the value of their property. And with declining markets, it is becoming more and more difficult for individuals to be able to sell their homes, so we anticipate there could be continued problems of more foreclosures. That means it is very important that this Congress act. We also know it not only affects the individual whose home is at jeopardy, but it affects the entire neighborhood. When there is a foreclosure in a community, the value of all the homes in that community declines. Local governments are also seeing a dramatic reduction in property tax revenues as a result of the decline of property values. Just at the time we need local government being more active in helping people who are going through tough economic times, they are finding it more difficult to act. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby for bringing forward a bipartisan bill, a bill that now stands an excellent chance of being enacted, and a bill that the people of this Nation desperately need. It would do something about the housing problems in this country, so I do thank them for their patience and their work. I see Senator Dodd is on the floor, and I personally thank him for the work he has done. We are now on the verge, I hope, of passing this very badly needed legislation, the key features of which are going to help the people of Maryland and around the Nation. This bill deals with properties that are in danger of being foreclosed by trying to prevent foreclosure. I think that is one of the things we should be doing here. The HOPE for Homeowners Act will help up to 400,000 or 500,000 homeowners on a voluntary basis get their mortgages refinanced, at no cost to the Government, using FHA, in order to make it affordable and to prevent foreclosure. That, to me, is smart. It is good for the homeowner, it is good for our economy, and it is a great investment for taxpayers because it will save them money by having less foreclosures in their communities. The legislation also helps communities in desperate need. The CDBG funds are increased to help the communities that have been hardest hit through the numbers of foreclosures, but then, moving forward, we do something about the housing crisis in this country. We provide affordable housing funds, which we desperately need in Maryland and throughout the Nation. We also provide more money for counseling. I say to Senator Dodd that I had a meeting in Baltimore with housing counselors who are overwhelmed. They cannot handle the number of people seeking their help, so the funds provided in this legislation will help them help people who want to get counseling, but the services are not available in so many communities around the country. The new disclosure requirements will also help people who will be moving forward because they will know what they are doing and have less chance of ending up in trouble in the future. I also want to comment on the provisions in this legislation that ease the credit crunch. Today, it is very difficult to find affordable mortgages. Obviously, lenders are being much more cautious and it is difficult today, if you live in a minority community or you live in a modest-income neighborhood, to be able to get a mortgage. Yet banks are willing to write mortgages. In the subprime mortgage industry, there were so many people, particularly from minority communities, who were steered into subprime loans. These individuals could have had traditional mortgages and they wouldn't have been in trouble today. Now there are many people who need help in finding an affordable mortgage. In this legislation, with the GSEs, the government-sponsored entities--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan--and the reforms in the FHA--raising the loan limits and by changing some of the underwriting--they will provide more mortgages to modest-income families in America, so those who are in the market to buy homes and who want to be in the market to buy homes will have a much easier time finding an affordable mortgage in order to move forward. That will be good for home ownership, which is good for our neighbors, and it is going to be good for our economy. I also thank Senator Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee for bringing forward some changes, some amendments to this legislation, which I think are very important. I had a meeting in Baltimore and met with the real estate community, and they told me several months ago we needed to do something to try to get first-time home buyers into the market. If the Federal Government could offer some incentives, it would help in freeing up the market, which is going to be good for our economy. At that time, I filed an amendment that would have provided a first-time homeowner's tax credit. I thank Senator Baucus for bringing out a similar proposal in the bill that is before us for first-time home buyers. The Federal Government will help participate in their buying a home and will offer them a credit of up to 10 percent of the cost of the home, up to $8,000, which will ultimately be an interest- free loan that the Federal Government will invest in an individual buying their first home, for modest-income families. To me, that makes sense. We want to encourage young people who can afford to own homes to buy homes, but they are reluctant to get into the market today because they do not know what is going to happen with the property values. When the Federal Government helps them buy that home, they are going to be more confident this is the right time to come into the market and to buy that home. I think this provision can make a huge difference, and I appreciate the Senate Finance Committee adding it to the good work of the Banking Committee. As I said earlier, this is an important bill. Today's vote was an important vote. We are on the path to getting it enacted. I urge my colleagues, let's work out our last differences, and let's get the votes we need to get on the floor of the Senate. Let's move this bill forward. Let's reconcile the differences with the House. Let's get it to the President. Let's get it into law so we can help the housing situation around the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I listened to Senator Specter talk about one of our most important responsibilities; that is, the confirmation process on the President's nominations for our courts, which are lifetime appointments. It is a major responsibility each of us has in the Senate. I think the way this confirmation process has proceeded with the three judges before us is an example as to how we should be working on the confirmation of judges. First, I think the process under which the Senators worked with the White House on the appointments is a model that should be used, I hope, in more circuits, where there is a real working relationship between the Senators and the White House to come up with the best qualified individuals to serve on the Federal bench. I congratulate Senators Levin and Stabenow for the manner in which these nominations were brought forward. Second is the confirmation process before the Judiciary Committee. I spent a lot of time reading the backgrounds on each of our nominees, as well as the hearing itself. I must tell you that as a result of reading the background material, as a result of the confirmation hearings, I am a strong supporter of Judge White for her confirmation to the court of appeals. I also support Mr. Kethledge for the court of appeals. I must tell you, in reading his background, I was a little concerned because he didn't have any real experience in writing opinions, didn't have experience in trying cases, as far as a judge is concerned, and there wasn't much to judge his ability to reason on the court of appeals by his background. But I must tell you, after listening to the confirmation hearings, I was convinced that he is well qualified to serve on the court of appeals. I am supporting his nomination. That is what the confirmation process should be about. I listened to Senator Specter have concerns about Judge White because of some of her opinions. I must tell you, I am pleased we have before us a nominee who has the experience to go onto the court of appeals or appellate courts. Judge White has served 15 years on the State appellate court. She has written numerous opinions, has participated in over 4,000 cases, served 12 years on the circuit court in Michigan. So she has trial court experience as a judge, and she has appellate court experience as a judge. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed by a lot of the nominees who have been brought forward by the White House because they have brought forward individuals who do not have experience to go on our second highest court. I think experience is important. I raised those concerns during Judge Elrod's confirmation hearing and Judge Haynes's hearing. I would like to have people with more experience so that we can judge their qualifications. In Judge White's case, we have that record, and it is a great one. Has she been reversed in her 4,000 decisions? Yes. That is why we have appellate courts. But she has never been challenged as far as her reasoning and her fairness and her demeanor. In fact, she has been rated by the American Bar Association as ``well-qualified.'' One more thing, Mr. President, as to why I strongly support Judge White's confirmation, and that is the manner in which she handled the confirmation hearings. They were not easy hearings. There were tough questions that were asked. She exercised the type of demeanor I want to see in our Federal judges. She exercised the type of response that I think represents the types of qualifications I want to see on our Federal bench. So I am very much supporting her confirmation. I hope she will receive a strong vote on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support all three of the Michigan judges who are before us for confirmation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today marks the 143rd anniversary of Juneteenth, a day on which our Nation celebrates the complete abolition of slavery in the United States. On June 19 of each year, we mark a turning point in American history. On January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in the Confederate states. However, it was not until June 19, 1865, a full 2\1/2\ years later, that Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 Federal troops arrived in Galveston, TX, to take possession of the State and enforce the emancipation decreed by President Lincoln. Tragically, slaves in Texas were not freed until that date. Juneteenth celebrations began in Texas the following year and have continued ever since. Now, in communities across the country, Juneteenth is a day for Americans to reflect upon a tragic period that divided our Nation and prevented realization of the Declaration of Independence's introductory words, ``(W)e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . '' For Marylanders, Juneteenth is a time to contemplate our own State's history. Slave labor helped spur Maryland's growth from the State's conception in 1664 until 1864 when slavery was abolished with the ratification of a new State constitution. Two hundred years of subjugation and oppression, of bondage and tyranny, serve as a reminder to all of us now of the importance of freedom and equality. Although Maryland was a slave State, it did not secede from the Union. Marylanders' contributions to the Union cause and the abolitionist movement did much to secure the abolition of slavery. Harriet Tubman, who was born Araminta Ross in Dorchester County, freed countless slaves from bondage and was the first woman to lead an armed assault in the Civil War. Frederick Douglass, who was born Frederick Augustus Bailey in Talbot County, escaped slavery and went on to become one of the foremost leaders of the abolitionist movement. These heroic Marylanders dedicated their lives to the emancipation of all slaves and the empowerment of African Americans. Earlier this year, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. His legacy remains with us as we continue to pursue equality and justice wherever disparities exist, whether in the economic, educational, housing, or health care arenas. It is our duty to eradicate discrimination in all its insidious forms. Our concerted efforts will be necessary to wipe out racial intolerance, and the strength of the Nation depends on the success of these efforts. Today, on this 143rd anniversary of the first Juneteenth, another historic event will take place. The first African-American woman to represent Maryland in the U.S. Congress, Donna Edwards, will be sworn in this afternoon. It is my honor, on this historic day, to call upon my colleagues to join me in celebrating Juneteenth and those who made this day possible.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 12:15 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Personal Information: Is the Federal Government Doing Enough?''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, .

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the people of Maryland and around the Nation are angry and frustrated. Every time they fill the tank of their vehicle with gasoline or look at their utility bills, they get worried. I must tell you, they are frustrated and so am I as to why the Republicans are blocking an opportunity for us to even take up this legislation to deal with the rising energy costs and to deal with the energy policies of this country. Republicans have blocked consideration of S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act, and H.R. 6049, the Energy and Tax Extenders Act containing renewable energy incentive programs. People in Maryland and around the Nation know that when George Bush took the office of President, the price of gasoline was $1.46 a gallon. It is now over $4 a gallon. They know the impact this is having on their lives. There are people in Maryland; in Pennsylvania, the State of the Presiding Officer; and around this Nation who literally cannot afford to fill their tanks with gasoline. They are having to make tough decisions today. There are small businesses that are going out of business because they can't afford the increased energy cost of running their small businesses, and they do not have options as to how to shift costs in order to deal with these rising costs without putting it onto the consumers. So this is having a dramatic impact on our economy. The people of our Nation are asking us to put aside our partisan differences. This is too important a subject for the security of our country, for the economy of our Nation to continue partisan fighting. We need to debate these issues and vote on these issues. I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 3044, which provides some immediate help to our consumers on energy cost. It deals with a limited number of subjects, but they are subjects that can have an impact on energy costs now. It would repeal the tax subsidies that we give the oil industry--the tax subsidies. We are providing $17 billion of tax relief to the oil industries while they have record profits. Their profits are at record numbers. President Bush said on April 14, 2005 that if the cost of crude was at $55 a barrel, the oil industry didn't need additional incentives. The President said: I will tell you, with $55-a-barrel oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. That was the President of the United States. Well, the price of crude oil now is at $140 a barrel, so we certainly don't need to have taxpayers subsidizing the profits of the oil industry. This legislation says: Let's use that money to make America secure. Let's put it into renewable energy sources here in America. The legislation would also allow the President to impose a windfall profits tax. I have heard a lot about that from my colleagues, but it simply says that if you are making obscene profits, you should pay some additional taxes. You could avoid the windfall profits tax. All you need to do is invest the profits in clean, affordable, and domestically produced renewable energy. In other words, invest in America's future and in America's security. The legislation also goes after speculators. A large part of the cost at the pump today for gasoline is because we have investors speculating in oil futures, but they are not subject to the normal investment rules. They should have margin requirements to be able to speculate. We need energy, we need gasoline at the pump, we don't need it held by speculators, and this legislation would deal with that situation to help bring down the cost of gasoline. It also deals with the collusive practices of the oil-supplying countries. Let's subject them, to the extent we can, to fair antitrust laws. So this legislation would have an impact in trying to bring down the cost of gasoline today. I know the President is going to make a statement saying we can drill our way out of this problem. We can't drill our way out of this problem. America has 3 percent of the world's reserves in oil, and we consume 25 percent. We can't drill our way out of it. ANWR, which is the sensitive land in Alaska the President wants us to drill in, contains .6 percent, less than 1 percent, of the world's reserves. We have millions of acres that are open for exploration and drilling today. The oil industry could use those millions of acres to obtain more energy, and it still wouldn't be enough to deal with our needs, but it would help us on a temporary basis. ANWR represents only a very small part of that. There are plenty of ways in which we can drill today, but it would not solve our problems. Let me give you one comparison. If we had passed the increased energy efficiencies for our automobiles 20 years ago rather than last year, we would have energy savings in America equivalent to more than three times the amount of oil we could get from the ANWR reserves. So in the short term, the bill we have before us is our best hope to bring down costs. It will help our consumers. But we do need an energy policy for America. We need to be energy secure, and H.R. 6049, of which the Republicans are blocking consideration, that deals with renewable energy, would help us obtain that. We need an energy policy in America that makes us secure from foreign imported oil. We have to be an energy-independent America. We have to produce our own energy in America so we can get off oil for the sake of our national security. We shouldn't be financing countries that disagree with our principles and our way of life. We need to be energy independent for our economy so we don't have these unpredictable changes in energy costs in America. One of the most frustrating things for American business is they need to plan for their costs. They can't plan today because we don't control our own energy. So we have to be energy independent for the purposes of our economy, and we also need to be energy independent for the sake of our environment. Global climate change is real and so we have to get off oil. So for all those reasons, we need to invest in renewable energy, we need to invest in better efficiencies, and H.R. 6049 allows us to move forward in doing that. Together we can enact legislation to help those frustrated Maryland consumers and drivers and those who live in Pennsylvania, the Presiding Officer's State, who are worried about whether they will be able to get to work with the rising cost of energy. We can help them today by putting aside our partisan differences and debating and voting on these issues. This Nation can accomplish anything, if we set our minds to it. I know we have support on both sides of the aisle for an energy policy that makes us energy independent and secure. Let's deal with the immediate problems of the gasoline and energy costs, let's deal with a long-term energy policy that is in the best interest of this Nation, and let's start by debating these issues. Let's put aside the filibuster, move forward, bring these bills to the floor of the Senate so we can do what Americans expect us to do--debate and act on this critical issue to the future of our country. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President. I must say I am puzzled why a Republican minority voted last week to prevent the Senate from even proceeding to the consideration of a bill--H.R. 6049, the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008--designed to bring down sky-high oil and gasoline prices, promote clean and renewable energy, create good jobs here in America, and put our Nation on a path to energy security. I am equally puzzled at the opposition to the provisions being paid for by closing a tax loophole on offshore income made by hedge fund managers. The American people need our help and we have a bill that would provide much needed relief to American families and yet we can't even get enough votes to legislate on the bill. The price of crude oil on the spot market is approaching $140 per barrel, nearly double the price of 1 year ago. When President Bush took office, a gallon of regular gas cost $1.46 and a gallon of diesel fuel cost $1.53. Today, those prices are at all-time highs, with regular gas costing $4.02 per gallon and diesel fuel costing $4.77 per gallon. A new poll indicates that 60 percent of Americans are reducing spending on other priorities because of rising gas prices. One-half of all households with incomes below $20,000 say they face severe hardships because of soaring gas prices. Clearly, the status quo is intolerable, but the minority won't even let the Senate consider bills to address these problems, much less pass them. As I said, I find that puzzling. Generally speaking, the legislative process works best when we are actually legislating. Last week, the Senate fell 10 votes short of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049. I am pleased to see that we are going to try again to invoke cloture; I hope we prevail this time. In addition to promoting our Nation's energy security, this bill provides critical tax relief for families and businesses, which is why I am a cosponsor of substitute amendment Senator Baucus hopes to offer to this bill if we can get to it. The Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008 provides approximately $18 billion in tax incentives for investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, carbon capture and sequestration demonstration projects. One provision of the bill specifically authorizes $2 billion for new clean renewable energy bonds. These bonds are essential in helping finance facilities that generate electricity from alternative resources like: wind, small irrigation, geothermal, hydropower, and landfill gas or trash combustion facilities. The bill also provides tax credits for renewable energy production, solar energy and fuel cell investment and tax credits for energy- efficient commercial buildings. Buildings account for over one-third of America's consumption, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 10 percent of particulate emissions, all of which damage urban air quality. They also produce 38 percent of the country's carbon dioxide emissions--the chief pollutant blamed for climate change. By changing the way buildings operate, we can change our ``carbon footprint'' on the Earth. In addition to helping companies explore the use of alternative fuels and energy saving products, we must also act individually. Recognizing this, Senator Baucus's legislation also provides incentives for individual taxpayers. The bill incorporates tax credits for energy efficient appliances in homes and energy efficient improvements to existing and new homes. If just 1 in 10 homes used ENERGY STAR- qualified appliances, a joint program between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, the effect would be like planting 1.7 million new acres of trees. Additionally, by making homes more energy efficient, we generate less air pollution and reduce high energy bills. Most of the energy used in our homes often comes from the burning of fossil fuels at powerplants, which contributes to acid rain and smog. By improving your home, whether by the appliances you choose or energy efficient remodeling, you take an important step forward in protecting the environment. The bottom line is that we have to conserve oil by using it more efficiently, and we have to find domestic alternatives to oil. The benefit of doing that, in addition to bolstering national security and our economy, is that using less oil and gas reduces the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global climate change. This is why renewable energy incentives are essential. In addition to many energy provisions that will help put America on track to energy independence, the bill also incorporates about $27 billion in several vital tax extensions for American families and businesses. In order for our country to remain a leader we must continue to be competitive. This is why the research and development tax credit is essential. As a long time supporter of the R&D tax credit, I am glad to see its inclusion into this legislation. This credit allows for companies to plan long term projects which translate into new technologies and new jobs. In 2005, 856 Maryland firms reported R&D activity to the IRS. My goal is to increase that number. I want more businesses--not only in Maryland, but across the country-- participating in research and development for our Nation. The bill also extends tax provisions for tuition expenses, out-of- pocket expenses for teachers, deductions for State and local sales taxes, and real property tax relief for nonitemizers. It also expands the child tax credit to help more than 13 million children and their families. Specifically, the bill extends the above-the-line deduction up to $250 for education expenses for all elementary and secondary teachers. It also provides aid for the rising costs of tuition. By providing an above-the-line deduction of $2,000 or $4,000, depending on income, for qualified higher education expenses, we help alleviate the burden of rising education costs for American families. The bill also expands the child tax credit to help more than 13 million children and their families. The bill also extends the option for taxpayers to take an itemized deduction for State and local general sales taxes, and provides a 1-year deduction of $350 for property taxes for nonitemizing taxpayers. Senator Baucus has also included a very important provision that places a 1-year ``patch'' on the alternative minimum tax, AMT. This provision translates into helping millions of Americans across the country and specifically hundreds of thousands of Marylanders. The bill increases the exemption amounts to $46,200 for individuals and $69,950 for married couples. It also allows personal credits to be used against the AMT. This provision is essential, otherwise American families will fall victim to a tax that we never intended them to have to pay. This bill will provide good jobs here at home, put us on a path toward sustainable energy security, and combat global climate change. I hope we will be allowed to consider this measure. The American people sent us here to do a job: to legislate. If we can't even get to this bill, we are not doing our job. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 3101, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This bill merits the support of every Senator. Action on this legislation is mandatory now because, in 18 days, the temporary fix we passed at the end of last year for providers will expire. If we fail to act, reimbursements to physicians and other providers who are paid under the physician fee schedule will be cut by 10.6 percent. On Tuesday, I met for over an hour with several physicians from Maryland. They cannot sustain a 10 percent cut in their Medicare payments, and they know that if these cuts are put into effect, many of their colleagues will stop accepting new Medicare patients into their practices. These pending cuts are the result of a flawed system that pegs reimbursement to the growth of GDP. We all recognize that this system, known as SGR, does not work. Every year since 2001, Congress has had to act to prevent the cuts from going into effect. We know that SGR must be repealed. I have introduced legislation in past years to eliminate SGR and replace it with a system that reimburses based on the actual reasonable costs of providing care. S. 3101 provides another temporary fix through December 31, 2009. That is sufficient time for Congress, working with a new administration and the provider community, to develop a new system of reimbursement that will contain unnecessary increases in volume while ensuring that reasonable costs are covered. But this bill is so much more than a ``doctor fix bill.'' Also expiring on June 30 is the exceptions process for outpatient therapy services. Therapy caps for physical, occupational and speech language therapy were added to Medicare law more than 10 years ago for purely budgetary reasons. The authors of that provision had no policy justification for limiting services, and the amount of the caps was purely arbitrary. Unless the exceptions process is extended, seniors recovering from more complex conditions, such as hip replacement and stroke, will face unreasonable and arbitrary dollar limits on the rehabilitation services available to them. This urgently needed legislation will help not just providers, but also the millions of seniors that Medicare was created to serve. This Senator is proud that the bill's title reflects the right priorities for Medicare--this is The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The 43 million seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on Medicare deserve a program that meets their health care needs. Our goal should be to ensure that Medicare provides comprehensive, affordable, quality care. S. 3101 makes important steps toward a better Medicare. It is significant that Chairman Baucus has led with important beneficiary improvements. In 1997, I worked in a bipartisan way to add to the Balanced Budget Act the first-ever package of preventive benefits to the traditional Medicare Program. That was 11 years ago. At that time, the members of the Ways and Means Committee recognized what medical professionals had long known--that prevention saves lives and reduces overall health care costs. Preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies are vital tools in the fight against serious disease. The earlier that breast and colon cancer are detected, the greater the odds of survival. For example, when caught in the first stages, the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is 98 percent. But if the cancer has spread, the survival rate drops to 26 percent. If colon cancer is detected in its first stage, the survival rate is 90 percent, but only 10 percent if found when it is most advanced. Seniors are at particular risk for cancer. In fact, the single greatest risk factor for colorectal cancer is being over the age of 50 when more than 90 percent of cases are diagnosed. Sixty percent of all new cancer diagnoses and 70 percent of all cancer-related deaths are in the 65 and older population. Cancer is the leading cause of death among Americans aged 60-79 and the second leading cause of death for those over age 80. So preventing cancer is essential to achieving improved health outcomes for seniors. Screenings are crucial in this fight. In addition to improving survival rates, early detection can reduce Medicare's costs. Under Chairman Conrad's leadership on the Budget Committee, we have had fruitful debates about the long-term solvency of Medicare. A more aggressive focus on prevention will help produce a healthier Medicare Program. Let me give you some examples. Medicare will pay on average $300 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is diagnosed after the colon cancer has metastasized, the costs of care can exceed $58,000. Medicare will pay $98 for a mammogram, but if breast cancer is not detected early, treatment can cost tens of thousands of dollars. One drug used to treat late stage breast cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year. There is no question that these vital screenings can produce better health care and more cost-effective health care. The 1997 law established place improved coverage for breast cancer screenings, examinations for cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer, diabetes self-management training services and supplies, and bone mass measurement for osteoporosis. Since then, Congress has added screening for glaucoma, cardiovascular screening blood tests, ultrasound screening for aortic aneurysm, flu shots, and medical nutrition therapy services. In addition, in 2003, a Welcome to Medicare Physical examination was added as a one-time benefit for new Medicare enrollees available during the first 6 months of eligibility. But we can only save lives and money if seniors actually use these benefits. Unfortunately, the participation rate for the Welcome to Medicare physical and some of the screenings is very low. I have spoken with primary care physicians across my State of Maryland about this. One problem is the requirement to satisfy the annual deductible and copays for these services. Patients are responsible for 20 percent of the cost of a mammogram, between $15 and $20. Most colonoscopies are done in hospital outpatient departments, where their copay is 25 percent, or approximately $85. Our seniors have the highest out of pocket costs of any age group and they will forgo these services if cost is a barrier. The other barrier to participation is the limited 6-month eligibility period for the one-time physical examination. By the time most seniors become aware of the benefit, the eligibility period has expired. In many other cases, it can take more than six months to schedule an appointment for the physical exam and by that time, the patients are no longer eligible for coverage. I have introduced legislation to eliminate the copays and deductibles for preventive services and to extend the eligibility for the Welcome to Medicare physical from 6 months to 1 year. My bill would also eliminate the time consuming and inefficient requirement that Congress pass legislation each time a new screening is determined to be effective in detecting and preventing disease in the Medicare population. It would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add ``additional preventive services'' to the list of covered services. They must meet a three part test: (1) They must be reasonable and necessary for the prevention or early detection of an illness; (2) they must be recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and (3) they must be appropriate for the Medicare beneficiary population. S. 3101, the Baucus bill, incorporates several elements of my bill in the very first section, and I want to thank the Finance Committee for including them. It will waive the deductible for the physical examination, extend the eligibility period from 6 months to 1 year, and allow the Secretary to expand the list of covered benefits. These provisions are supported by the American Cancer Society, AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, SEIU, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the American Academy of Nursing, and many more groups. This bill will also help low income seniors by raising asset test thresholds in the Medicare Savings Programs and targeting assistance to the seniors who most need it. As this Congress continues to make progress toward passing a comprehensive mental health parity bill, the Baucus-Snowe bill steps up for our seniors and provides mental health parity for Medicare beneficiaries, moving their copayments from 50 percent to 20 percent gradually over 6 years. Depression, bipolar disorder, and other mental illnesses are prevalent among seniors, and yet fewer than half receive the treatment they need. This provision will help them get needed services. Section 175 of the Baucus bill will ensure that a category of drugs called benzodiazepines are covered in Medicare Part D. When the Medicare prescription drug benefit took effect on January 1, 2006, millions of beneficiaries found that the prescription medicines they took were not covered by the new law. A little-known provision in the Medicare prescription drug bill actually excluded from coverage an entire class of drugs called benzodiazepines. These are anti-anxiety medicines used to manage several conditions, including acute anxiety, seizures, and muscle spasms. The category includes Xanax, Valium, and Ativan. Most are available as generics. They constitute the 13th leading class of medications in the U.S., with 71 million prescriptions dispensed in 2002. A study of dual- eligibles in nursing homes found that 12 percent of patients had at least one prescription for a benzodiazepine. This exclusion has led to health complications for beneficiaries, unnecessary complexity for pharmacists, and additional red tape for the states. Beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicaid have had to shoulder the entire cost of these drugs or substitute other less effective drugs. In 2005, I first introduced legislation that would add benzodiazepines to the categories of prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D and Medicare advantage plans. I want to thank Chairman Baucus for recognizing the importance of this coverage and adding section 175 to this bill. Without this provision, dual eligibles would have to rely on continued Medicaid coverage for benzodiazepines. Medicare beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicaid will have to continue to pay out-of-pocket for them. For those who cannot afford the expense, their doctors would have to use alternative medicines that may be less effective, more toxic, and more addictive. This is a significant improvement for our seniors who are enrolled in Part D and for the fiscal health of our States. The Baucus bill is paid for by slight reductions to the overpayments that the federal government makes to private health plans. The nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, has recommended that we equalize payments between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. As we discuss the solvency of the Medicare Program, we must take note that private health plans are not saving the Federal Government money. In fact, they are costing us money. I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee when health plans approached us with an offer. If the Federal Government would pay them 95 percent of what we were spending on the traditional Medicare Program, they would create efficiencies through managed care that would save the Federal Government billions of dollars each year. They promised to provide enhanced coverage, meaning extra benefits as well as all the services covered by traditional Medicare, for 95 percent of the cost of fee for service. Congress gave them a chance to do just that. Instead, what we saw across the country was cherry-picking of younger, healthier seniors. Each time Congress indicated that it would roll back their overpayments to a more reasonable level, they responded by pulling out of markets. In Maryland, the number of plans declined over a 3-year period from eight to one, abandoning thousands of seniors. Since 2003, when payments were substantially increased, the number of plans has steadily increased as well, but at too high a cost to beneficiaries, taxpayers, and the future of the Medicare Program. Right now, these plans are paid up to 19 percent more than the amount that we would pay if these seniors were in fee-for-service Medicare. Over 10 years, we are overpaying them by more than $150 billion. That is enough to make significant valuable improvements in the overall Medicare Program, or to permanently repeal the sustainable growth rate formula. It is time, for the health of the Medicare Program, to pay these plans appropriately. This bill would make small reductions to these overpayments as well as prohibit the abusive marketing practices, such as cold calling, door-to-door sales, and offering incentives such as free meals, which have led to many seniors being enrolled in private plans without their knowledge or consent. This is a balanced and responsible bill that addresses immediate reimbursement concerns while setting the foundation for a higher quality, more cost-effective Medicare Program. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to S. 3101 and to vote for this well- crafted bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time on behalf of Marylanders who are worried. They are worried because of the high cost of energy. They are worried about the cost of filling the tanks in their cars with gasoline. They want us to do something about it. They are looking to us. They recall just 7 years ago, when President Bush took office, and the price of gasoline at the pump was less than $1.50 a gallon. Today, it is over $4 a gallon. It is having a direct impact on people in my State and around the Nation being able to afford to operate their automobiles. I can tell you businesses in Maryland--and I am sure my colleagues have similar stories around the Nation--particularly small businesses that rely upon their car or truck for transportation, don't have the ability to afford the increased cost of energy. They are on the brink of going out of business because of the rising energy cost. They want us to do something about it. I am particularly disappointed and frustrated that the Republicans decided twice this week to deny us an opportunity to do what we should be doing--legislating on this very important issue. The Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 would have made a major difference in the cost of energy in the United States. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. Yet the Republicans used a procedural roadblock--a filibuster--to prevent us from taking up that legislation, debating it, acting on amendments, and doing what we should be doing. The Republicans said the status quo is acceptable. Well, the status quo is not acceptable. What would this legislation do? First, it would say taxpayers don't need to subsidize the oil companies. The oil companies are making record profits. In 2002, their profits were $29 billion. Last year, that grew to $124 billion. They don't need public subsidies. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing them. By the way, they are not investing their profits back into this country. They are not looking at ways to make this Nation more energy secure, nor are they investing in renewable energy sources. The President said, on April 14, 2005, that if oil reaches $55 a barrel, there is no need for the Government to subsidize further efforts on behalf of the oil industry. The price now is $140 a barrel. So the subsidies were provided. That $17 billion should be reinvested in America, rather than subsidizing oil companies for even greater profits. Let's use that for making this Nation energy secure, and let's use it for renewable energy sources. That is exactly what this legislation would do. There has been a lot of talk about a windfall profits tax. I happen to believe the oil industry is entitled to a profit--just not an obscene profit, taking advantage of the world circumstances in oil. With the windfall profit provision of this legislation, it would tell the oil companies to invest a little bit of that money here in America, in renewable energy sources. That is what it does. It is a clear message about the security of America. This legislation would take on the speculators. A large part of the cost is not that we are using more oil because, actually, we are using less oil today because of the high cost. We have speculators, who are people buying oil futures and driving up the cost of oil, and we are paying more at the pump. This legislation says those types of speculators should be regulated. There should be margin requirements that make sense, and they should not speculate without sound investment principles. That is what this legislation does. This legislation expresses our concerns that the OPEC countries that are sending oil into America and depend upon U.S. consumers should be subject to our antitrust laws. This legislation would help in the short term, help bring down the cost of gasoline in the short term, but it would also provide us some long-term strategies for energy security. What did the Republican leadership do? They said, no, let's not talk about it. The status quo is acceptable. Well, it is not acceptable. Then, on H.R. 6049, the Republican leadership again exercised the filibuster procedural roadblock, and we could not take up that legislation, which would provide $18 billion for tax incentives for renewable energy sources so we can energize the American marketplace to develop our wind, solar and geothermal and we can develop the answers to our energy problems in America by energizing innovative individuals and companies in using our market forces to solve the problems here in America. The legislation also provided for more energy-efficient buildings, which makes sense, and extended the expiring tax provisions, including research and development, which would also help us in dealing with the problems of our country, and extending the alternative minimum tax relief, which is so important. The Republicans said, no, with procedural roadblocks. The American people want us to act. I have heard my Republican colleagues say we can produce enough oil to solve this problem. Let me give you the numbers and facts. I hope the public will make its own judgment. America, unfortunately, doesn't have a large reserve of oil. We have 3 percent of the world's reserve, including that in ANWR. If we allowed production in that environmentally sensitive area, ANWR, at full production we would produce about six-tenths of 1 percent of the oil in the world. Does anyone think the OPEC nations would not just reduce their supply to us by that amount, meaning there would be no impact whatsoever as a result of the production of that small amount of oil? As the majority leader pointed out, when I had the opportunity to sit in the chair earlier today, we have sources of oil, and we are utilizing those sources. We are exploring where we can fulfill the energy needs for our own country. But the truth is, we consume 25 percent of the world's oil and only have 3 percent of the reserves. We cannot produce enough oil to deal with our needs. We need to develop alterative energy sources. I will give you one other statistic. If we would have passed the CAFE standards 10 years ago, we would be saving more oil than three times the amount that is currently in reserve in ANWR. So we need to become energy secure, and we need to do it for several reasons. We need to do it because of our security, because of our economy, and because of our environment. If we develop alternative fuel, if we do better in conservation, and if we invest in more efficient transportation, we cannot only become independent of the OPEC countries and the hold they have on us in determining how much oil they will make available to us, but we also can be friendlier to our environment. We can deal with the serious environmental issue we have and America can restore international leadership. What do the Republicans say? We cannot even talk about these issues with a bill, with amendments before us, because they use procedural roadblocks to prevent us from taking up this issue. Well, we should be taking up these bills. Marylanders want us to act and vote and make the tough decisions. They want us to do that. They want us to develop an energy policy that will wean us off oil, that makes us energy secure, that allows us to control the economic cost of energy, that puts America in the forefront of the international community on global warming to deal with pollution and to deal with the risks that are involved. But what Americans want us to do today is to move forward on the legislation that is before us, the Consumer-First Energy Act that could and would have an impact on the price of gasoline in the short term so those Marylanders with whom I have talked, who have told me that they literally cannot afford to operate their cars and are in danger of losing their businesses, that we are taking every reasonable step here to deal with their concerns and to help them. That would be the responsible action for us to take. I urge my colleagues to put aside this partisan differing and let's act in the best interest of the people of this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The Federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year. This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modem world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization. Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has 7 or 8 copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records. The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties. Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill. EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury. A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA. This is legislation that is overdue. I ask Members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, States, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st Century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The Federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year. This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modem world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization. Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has 7 or 8 copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records. The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties. Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill. EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury. A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA. This is legislation that is overdue. I ask Members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, States, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st Century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow our Nation will mark the 40th anniversary of Senator Robert F. Kennedy's death. In his all too brief lifetime, Robert Kennedy was an icon of the struggle for civil and human rights, social justice, and peace. In the midst of the civil rights movement, the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam, and the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Kennedy stood as a beacon of hope, inspiring Americans from all walks of life that we could rise above our Nation's struggles. With his death in the early morning of June 6, 1968, America lost a true public servant, a voice for the underprivileged and underserved, and a source of hope during a turbulent time. My own political career began the year before, in 1967, but for years prior, Robert Kennedy's life had inspired me to seek public office. After managing his brother John's successful 1952 Senate campaign, Robert Kennedy worked briefly on Capitol Hill. He then went on to serve in his brother John's administration as Attorney General, where he was renowned for his diligence, effectiveness, and nonpartisanship. At Justice, he pursued a relentless battle against organized crime, frequently at odds with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover. During his tenure, convictions of notorious organized crime figures rose eightfold. It was also during this time that Robert Kennedy moved to center stage in the struggle for civil rights. On May 6, 1961, he visited the University of Georgia, which just months before had admitted its first black students. Kennedy addressed the university's law school, enunciating the administration's position on civil rights, stating: We must recognize the full human equality of all our people--before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this not because it is economically advantageous--although it is; not because the laws of God and man command it--although they do command it; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do. Robert Kennedy's commitment to promoting African Americans' right to vote, receive an equal education, and equal protection under the law intensified over time. In 1962 he sent U.S. Marshals and troops to Oxford, MS to enforce a Federal court order admitting the first black student, James Meredith, to the University of Mississippi. As Attorney General, Robert Kennedy demanded that every corner of Government begin recruiting realistic levels of blacks and other minorities. He collaborated with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to create the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, and served as one of its most forceful and committed proponents. In 1964, Robert Kennedy ran for the U.S. Senate, challenging and defeating incumbent Republican Senator Kenneth Keating of New York. As a Senator, Robert Kennedy continued to champion civil rights, human rights, and disenfranchised peoples, both at home and abroad. When few politicians dared to entangle themselves in the politics of South Africa, Senator Kennedy spoke out against oppression and injustice there. His groundbreaking 1966 visit to South Africa helped awaken Americans to the bitter realities of apartheid. During this period, he vociferously opposed the Vietnam war, advocating for increased diplomacy rather than the use of force. At home in New York, Senator Kennedy initiated a number of projects in the State, including assistance to underprivileged children and students with disabilities. He authored legislation that led to the establishment of the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, which improved living conditions and brought employment opportunities to economically depressed areas of Brooklyn. Now in its 40th year, the program remains a model for communities across the Nation. This program was part of a broader effort to address the needs of the dispossessed and powerless in America. He sought to bring the facts about poverty to the conscience of the American people, journeying into poor urban neighborhoods, Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, Indian reservations, and migrant workers' camps. Senator Kennedy's fervent belief that America could do better compelled him to seek the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968. The night of June 5 should have been a triumphant one for Robert Kennedy. After winning the California primary by four points, he seemed destined to secure the nomination, standing as a symbol of the hope and change that so many people across the country desperately wanted, but his life was cut short by an assassin's bullet. Coming a mere 2 months after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy's death shocked the Nation. Early in the afternoon on June 6, 1968, Robert Kennedy's body was flown from California to New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral for a requiem mass. On Saturday, June 8, a funeral train of 20 cars transported Robert Kennedy's body from New York, through Baltimore, to Washington. Tens of thousands of Americans--some in the press estimated a million people--lined the tracks to pay their respects. Robert Kennedy's casket traveled down Constitution Avenue, past the Justice Department Building that now bears his name, to the Lincoln Memorial and across the bridge to Arlington National Cemetery, where he was buried next to his brother, President John F. Kennedy. The legacy of Robert F. Kennedy--the passion with which he fought for civil and human rights, and his steadfast dedication to the dispossessed--has lived on in this Chamber for the past 40 years through his brother, our distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. We are fortunate indeed that the Kennedy family's selfless service to our Nation has extended to younger generations. In the House of Representatives, I was proud to serve with Robert Kennedy's eldest son, Joe, and his nephew, Patrick. His eldest daughter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, served as Maryland's Lieutenant Governor for 8 years. But the Kennedy family's wonderful record of public service is not limited to elective office alone. Think of Joe Kennedy, who founded the Citizens Energy Corporation; or Robert Kennedy, Jr., who established the Waterkeeper Alliance; or Courtney Kennedy Hill, who worked as a representative for the United Nations AIDS Foundation. And I would be remiss not to mention Robert Kennedy's amazing wife, Ethel, widowed at the age of 40 with 10 children and pregnant with another. Her courage and grace are an inspiration to us all. At Robert Kennedy's request, his grave consists of a plain white cross and a stone slab on which is inscribed a passage from his Day of Affirmation speech to South Africans. It reads: Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. We can honor Robert Kennedy, his legacy, and his promise by standing up for an ideal, by acting to improve the lot of others, by striking out against injustice, and by sending forth those ripples of hope our Nation and the rest of the world so desperately need. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to put aside our partisan differences. Let's follow the leadership of Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, and Senator Boxer and find a way to move forward with the global warming legislation. It is so important to this country. The scientific information is clear. There is something happening out there. We all know about it. We know the weather changes. We see extreme weather taking place--the droughts, the floods, the impact it is having on our food chain, the drought in Australia with the wheat crop and what it has done with bread prices. In my State of Maryland we see the warming of the Chesapeake Bay and the impact it has on blue crabs with the eelgrass which is critically important for juvenile crabs not being there. The Governor imposed a restriction on the taking of blue crabs during this season. I could give 100 more examples. If I can't convince my colleagues on the science, let me refer to an issue on which we can all agree; that is, we need energy independence. Our global warming bill leads us to energy independence. We need energy independence for national security, so we are not dependent upon other countries. We need energy independence so we don't have to wake up every morning to find out what OPEC is doing that affects gasoline prices in the United States. We need energy independence for our environment. This legislation uses market forces to solve the problem of greenhouse gases. We did that with acid rain, and it worked, far less expensively than the projections, and the benefit ratio to cost was 40 to 1. If we unleash our economy, we can solve this problem. Let me state the obvious: When we invest in renewables--and this legislation does--we invest in energy efficiency. If we invest in public transportation, we are going to have less use of gasoline by Americans--yes, less use of oil. If we have less use of oil, gasoline prices are going to go down, supply and demand. If we have less use of oil, we are going to be less dependent on other countries. If we use less oil, we control our own economic future. But this legislation goes further than that, providing assistance for, perhaps, consequences we can't fully understand. So we provide help to heavy industry. Maryland is a proud manufacturing State. It has a great history of manufacturing. I want to make sure Maryland has a future in manufacturing. This legislation deals with that, providing help to our industries. We don't know exactly what impact it is going to have on different constituencies. The legislation provides help for consumers. Just as importantly, this legislation provides that it is deficit neutral; that we will make sure we don't have to borrow more money. In fact, this legislation will mean Americans will borrow less. It is good for our economy. Another part of this bill I found very helpful and that hasn't received a lot of attention is that we establish a level playing field so if other countries don't put a cap on their carbon emissions, they have to pay a tariff to bring their product to America, so that we don't put American manufacturers, producers, or farmers at a competitive disadvantage. There is one particular section of this bill I would like to underscore and I am particularly proud of because I introduced the amendment in committee and worked with Senator Boxer, and that is the public transit provisions. It provides over $170 billion during the life of the bill to build stronger public transportation in America. One-third of all CO2 emissions come from transportation. But in the last 15 years, 50 percent of the increase in our emissions have come from the transportation sector. The projected growth in the next 30 years of vehicle traffic alone would negate all the benefit from the CAFE standard increases we passed last year if we don't take more aggressive steps to get cars off the road. Public transportation is critically important. It reduces emissions. People are interested in public transportation. Since 1995, we have seen a 32-percent increase in ridership, 10.3 billion passenger trips in 2007. In the first quarter of this year, there has been a 3.3- percent increase in public transportation. That is 85 million more trips on public transportation. The problem is the physical infrastructure needs attention. The ridership at peak hours is already full. We need greater capacity. We need more efficiency and more economy in the use of public transportation. This legislation provides for it. Of the funds that are provided--the $170 billion plus--95 percent is distributed on the SAFETEA-LU formula; 65 percent for existing systems; 30 percent for new starts; and 5 percent in competitive grants for transportation alternatives and travel demand reduction projects. It is supported by the American Public Transportation Association, the National League of Cities, and I could add many more. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill as brought forward by Senator Boxer. I urge my colleagues to support it. I do have amendments to improve it. I hope we will get to amendments. One of my amendments would include the public transportation sector by including metropolitan planning organizations as eligible entities to receive grants under the funding. This builds upon smart growth. Maryland provided leadership nationally on how smart growth can add to our energy independence and a cleaner environment. That experience in Maryland can be used nationwide. My amendment will make funds available for States to move forward for smart growth. The amendment also provides for transit enhancements, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that would be eligible activities. In Maryland, I am proud of the work we have done in taking funds and building paths for bicycles and pedestrians. The Gwynns Falls Greenway in Baltimore and the Jones Falls Greenway are examples of how we have rehabilitated historical trails where people can walk and bike and add to the quality of life. Another amendment that I intend to offer will allow for the clean, medium-heavy truck vehicle fleets which are provided for in this bill, funds to help fleets use clean energy but to expand that to public entities--Senator Specter and Senator Carper are joining me on that-- that they would qualify. That will help vehicle manufacturers. The coalition that supported the original provision for fleet vehicles-- such as Volvo, PowerTran, UPS, Federal Express, and PepsiCo--supports the change I am suggesting. Lastly, let me point to intercity rail. I will offer an amendment to provide funding for intercity rail. I think it is another way we can get people out of their cars. That is what we have to do if we are going to have a clean environment and be energy independent. The intercity rail is another way we can do it. Let me make it clear, I hope we get to amendments. Amendments can strengthen this bill. This bill needs to be strengthened. But the bill before us today is a bill that deserves our support. I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of making sure we move forward to enact global warming legislation this year. I urge my colleagues to do that.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution conference report. As a member of the committee, I want to recognize Chairman Conrad and thank him personally for his untiring efforts to craft a blueprint that will get our Nation's fiscal house back in order. Perhaps more than at any time in our history, it is imperative that Congress focus seriously on our Nation's budget situation. The competing demands of an aging population, our current international commitments, growing competition in the global economy, our widening trade deficit, and shrinking revenues all require that we address our fiscal situation with urgency. Revenues are at a historic low point, while the demographics of the country are driving spending higher on needs that the private sector is ill-equipped to address. Now there is widespread consensus among working families that--regardless of the official definition--we are in a recession. Employment growth during this administration has averaged fewer than 50,000 jobs a month--the lowest monthly rate for any administration since Dwight D. Eisenhower's and less than one-quarter the average of 237,000 jobs per month created during the Clinton administration. Inflation-adjusted hourly wages have decreased by 1.3 percent since August 2003. Even median annual household income has decreased by $1,700, or 3.6 percent, after accounting for inflation. These are aggregate statistics, but behind each of them are millions of families who are falling behind as a result of inadequate investment in the right priorities. For too long, we have been moving in the wrong direction. Over the past 7 years, the Bush administration has sent us budgets with the wrong priorities. They have contained drastic cuts to education and health care programs. They did not provide for investment in our nation's public transit systems, bridges, and roads. They did not address energy efficiency. They ignored veterans' health care needs and actually attempted to make it more difficult for veterans to access the health system we promised our troops. And they neglected the programs that help working families thrive, including child care, housing, community development, and job training. Recent Congresses supported those budgets, and exacerbated the fiscal crisis by enacting irresponsible tax cuts that America could not afford--tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthiest Americans, while providing very little help for working families. Last year, under new leadership in Congress, we passed a budget that began to change course. This budget continues that effort, and I am pleased to support it. This conference agreement targets tax relief where it is most needed--at working families. This includes an extension of the child care tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and the 10 percent individual income tax bracket. Equally important, this budget resolution is fiscally responsible. It will return us to a balanced budget, with a surplus of $22 billion in 2012 and $10 billion in 2013. Even as crucial domestic programs have suffered under this administration, the Nation's debt has increased from $5.8 trillion at the end of President Bush's first year in office to in excess of $9 trillion. If we fail to change course, we will leave our children and grandchildren an insurmountable legacy of debt. The fiscal policies of this current administration have erased the $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected in 2000 and replaced it with a projected deficit of nearly $4 trillion over the next 10 years. The borrowing necessitated by deficit spending has jeopardized our economic position in the world, and it has clouded the outlook for generations of Americans to come. We have had to turn to foreign governments to borrow money. Our foreign-held debt has increased by more than 100 percent during this administration. In fact, in just one year, the total has increased from $2.1 trillion to $2.5 trillion. According to the Treasury Department, as of March 2008, the United States now owes more than $600 billion to Japan, nearly $500 billion to China, more than $200 billion to the United Kingdom We owe $150 billion to oil exporting nations, up from $112 billion last year. These levels of foreign-held debt threaten our independence as a nation, and they are unsustainable. That is why it is so important that we make the difficult budget choices that can return us to a balanced budget, and that this resolution contain tools needed to get there, including pay-go. This resolution calls for $3.1 trillion in spending for the next fiscal year. It rejects the President's cuts to entitlement programs, and it funds domestic discretionary programs at $21 billion above his budget request. This means that we can begin to make much needed improvements in the programs that help build our nation. The many important areas that this budget addresses are particularly crucial in these difficult economic times for America's families. We provide for a reserve fund that will improve access to affordable housing for working families, we add $40 million for emergency food assistance and we improve unemployment compensation. In health care, I want to mention two specific areas. This budget makes room for critically needed increases in health research funding. The National Institutes of Health is headquartered in Maryland, and its grants fund research in my state and across the nation. Unfortunately, this is the sixth year in a row that NIH has been essentially flat- funded. I have the privilege of meeting often with biomedical researchers from my home state. They are working to find treatments and cures for our most challenging diseases--cancer, diabetes, arthritis, ALS, and others. During the period when Congress doubled NIH funding--between 1998 and 2003--researchers' chances of securing NIH funding for a worthwhile grant proposal was one in four. Since 2003, their chances have dwindled to one in eleven. Undergraduate and graduate students alike are beginning to question their career choices and wonder if there is a future for them in biomedical research. With medical research inflation at nearly 3.5 percent, we must increase the agency's funding by at least that amount in order to break even. To make progress in the fight against disease, we must increase our spending substantially. I am pleased that our resolution rejects the President's planned cuts for this critical agency and makes room for additional funding. This budget resolution also makes room for improvements to pediatric dental care. I have come to the floor of the Senate on several occasions to talk about a 12-year-old named Deamonte Driver. He lived just 6 miles from here in Prince George's County, MD. The Driver family, like many other families across the country, lacked dental coverage. At one point, his family had Medicaid, but they lost it when they moved into a shelter, and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would treat him. Deamonte began to complain of headaches in January 2007. An evaluation at Children's Hospital found that he had an abscessed tooth, but the condition was advanced and he needed emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures and a second operation. Even though he received additional treatment and appeared to be recovering, medical intervention had come too late. Deamonte passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. At the end, the total cost of his treatment exceeded a quarter of a million dollars--more than 3,000 times the $80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction. There is no excuse for us, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, to watch a child die for lack of access to basic dental care. It is difficult to find dentists to treat low-income children for two reasons. First, because there is a shortage of pediatric dentists--only 4.3 percent of dental school graduates in 2001 reported pediatric dentistry as their specialty of choice; and second, because the reimbursement from public programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP is low. Our budget rejects the President's cuts to dental training programs, and it is my hope that we will continue to work to increase the number of pediatric dentists and improve reimbursement for public programs. But there are thousands more children, like Deamonte's brothers who also need dental care--who cannot wait for us to recruit and train more dentists. I thank both Senator Whitehouse, who joined me in offering an amendment in committee to address this issue, and the members of the Budget Committee who unanimously supported it. My amendment would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund in the budget for legislation to improve access for low-income children who are in either Medicaid, SCHIP, or are uninsured. As a result, this budget will allow Congress to fund legislation to improve oral health care and more appropriately reimburse the providers who are willing to treat low-income children. These are the offices, clinics, and dental schools whose doors are open to underserved patients, but whose ability to treat large numbers is compromised by inadequate payments. This budget also funds critical investments in homeland security. The President's budget reduced funding for important first responder programs, including the SAFER--Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response--grant program. The SAFER grant program directly funds fire departments and volunteer firefighter interest organizations to help them increase the number of trained, frontline firefighters. This budget rejects those cuts and will give firefighters needed resources to protect our communities. I am proud that this resolution also addresses another issue that is critically important for Maryland. It calls for pay parity between civilian and military employees. With tens of thousands of Federal employees in Maryland, I have witnessed the additional burdens placed on our civil servants, particularly since the 2001 terrorist attacks on our Nation. These dedicated employees are called upon to assume greater risks with lower comparable pay to private sector wages. In addition, many Federal agencies now face a human capital crisis, with thousands of our most experienced employees eligible to retire in the next few years. Pay parity is necessary if we will be able to recruit and retain a quality Federal workforce, and this budget provides for it. Finally, I also note that this budget supports our veterans. We rightly reject the President's misguided proposals to increase enrollment fees and copayments for veterans' health care services. We increase funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs so that we can improve VA health care facilities and improve access to rehabilitation, mental health services, traumatic brain injury services, and speed the processing time for disability claims. Again, I thank Chairman Conrad for his leadership in helping to bring forth this agreement. As he has said previously, it truly marks a new path forward for our country. I urged my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I congratulate the St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center on its 40th anniversary. Since 1968, it has grown from its original mission to confront the ``blockbusting'' practices harming Baltimore's neighborhoods to providing a myriad of services to more than 100,000 Baltimoreans as our oldest nonprofit housing provider. St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center was founded in 1968 by the dynamic and tenacious Father Vincent Patrick Quayle, known to all as Vinny. The center is dedicated to creating and preserving affordable housing in Baltimore. Its many successes are due to the charismatic and effective leadership of Vinny Quayle and the tireless efforts of a dedicated staff. In the 1970s, St. Ambrose initiated a rental program and converted several vacant Catholic school buildings into affordable apartments. This effort led to neighborhood revitalization in many Baltimore communities. Today, St. Ambrose owns and manages 350 single and multifamily affordable housing units serving very low-income households, households with special needs, and the elderly. When Baltimore experienced a gentrification movement in the 1980s, many low income families, especially those renting their homes, feared they would be displaced. St. Ambrose led the way in helping tenants convert to homeownership and was instrumental in convincing Baltimore City to establish a ``Tenant's Right of First Refusal'' bill. Two other programs were established that have become core services at St. Ambrose. The Homesharing Program, the only one in Maryland, matches householders with room to share with homeseekers who need affordable housing and are willing to provide help with household tasks or financial support. The Legal Services Program helps homeowners and tenants combat home improvement fraud and predatory lending practices. St. Ambrose partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and bought, renovated and sold Federal Housing Administration, FHA, properties to first-time homebuyers. Through its Homeownership Counseling Program, St. Ambrose serves more than 700 prospective homebuyers every year, with 100 of them purchasing a home within 6 months of completing housing counseling. As the numbers of subprime mortgages and foreclosures have increased, St. Ambrose has stepped forward to help homeowners save their homes. Expert housing counselors provide assistance to homeowners in a number of ways and staff attorneys are available to provide legal review and action. I am most proud to extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center on its 40th anniversary and ask my colleagues to do the same.