Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Yes.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I would like to focus my remarks today on health care as many others have done. Actually, I am very glad to see the debate today was focused on small businesses and the impact of what we do on them. I am surprised, however, to see those who are discussing the current legislation that is before us are discussing it as something that will benefit small businesses and will help to drive down the cost curve because, as remarkable as it may seem, this legislation that both the House and the Senate have had under consideration--hopefully what we will now see in the near future as the final product that we will be able to review--will drive up the cost curve and increase the cost of health care, not only for small businesses but for everybody in America. If we ask most Americans what they want in health care reform, they will tell us they want to stop the spiraling cost of health care insurance. Yet the legislation we see does exactly the opposite. Over the last few weeks I have come to this floor to discuss tax increases that were contained in the health care legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee, both in terms of the big picture and, more specifically, in terms of what it means to middle-income Americans and to small businesses and to any American who wants to answer the question: How would this bill affect me and my family? We have already heard the answer to that question in a number of different contexts, but I think it bears repeating. Under the Senate Finance bill, if you have insurance, you get taxed. If you do not have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't want to purchase insurance, you get taxed. If you have a job, you get taxed. If you need medical devices, you get taxed. If you take prescription drugs, you get taxed. If you have high out-of-pocket medical expenses, you get taxed. The list goes on. The reason is this legislation will create new, brandnew massive entitlement programs to the tune of what we do not clearly know yet but which will almost certainly be in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. It pays for them--or offsets the cost of those on the Treasury--by increasing taxes on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars and by cutting Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. We still do not have the ``merged'' Senate bill before us to review and debate, but we do have the House-passed bill to review. There have been a number of rumors and discussions in the media about what kind of new tax increases the Senate bill will have when it is finally disclosed. In fact, we hear we may find out, as a country--the people of America may find out tonight what this bill that has been negotiated and created behind closed doors actually contains. I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the provisions that we expect to be there. The House version of the health bill contains more than $752 billion of tax increases. Some of these tax increases are the same ones we have already seen in the Finance Committee bill, such as the medical device tax, the $2,500 cap on flexible spending accounts, the prohibition on prepurchase health care accounts--FSAs and HRAs--and the doubling of tax penalties for those in emergency situations who must use a portion of their health savings account to pay for nonmedical bills. There are many other new tax increases in the House bill which we have not seen in the Senate finance bill that we also need to review. From the beginning of this process the chairman of the Finance Committee has stated his intention to use only health-related offsets to pay for health-related spending. If there is to be new health- related spending, that is definitely the right approach. We all know what a difficult circumstance our country faces today when it comes to jobs. The current unemployment rate is 10.2 percent. The last thing we need to do is to enact policies that would make it even tougher for U.S. companies, particularly small businesses, to create new jobs. But, amazingly, the House bill contains more than $80 billion in tax increases on domestic U.S. job-creating companies that have no involvement in the health care industry. Not only do these provisions violate the idea that we should be staying within the health care arena to find offsets on the health care bill, but these antijob tax increases are the last thing we need in this fragile economy. The largest tax increase in the House bill would also have a devastating effect on the job creators in our country, particularly small businesses, that are the top job creators. This $460 billion so-called ``millionaire surtax'' is bad policy for many reasons. First, like the $80 billion tax increase on domestic companies that I just mentioned, this tax increase grabs hundreds of billions of dollars from outside the health care arena to pay for a massive expansion of a new health care entitlement. Second, although this provision is being billed as a tax increase on millionaires, the Joint Tax Committee reports that one-third of the revenue it will generate is not from individual income of millionaires but from small businesses. As we know, many small businesses file their taxes as individuals, and it would be these small businesses, the job creators of our economy, that would be facing this new punitive surtax. Third, although you would think we would have learned our lesson from the alternative minimum tax, like the AMT, this new surtax would also not be indexed for inflation. That means, over time, this would creep further and further down the income scale, and more and more small businesses and middle-income families would be suddenly hit by this surtax. Fourth, this surtax would not only apply to ordinary income, it also applies to capital gains and dividend income which are currently taxed at lower rates. The capital gains and dividend rates are currently 15 percent. If Congress doesn't act before next year, the rates will go back up to the pre-2003 levels of 20 percent for capital gains and up to a maximum of 39.6 percent for dividends. The President has said he doesn't intend to extend the current lower rates for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or for families making less than $250,000 a year. But if we add in this new surtax in the House bill, Americans above those thresholds who are currently paying a 15-percent capital gains tax rate would see their tax rate jump to 25.4 percent in 2011, and those currently paying the 15 percent dividends rate would see their rates jump to 45 percent by 2011. Such a tax increase would violate yet another one of President Obama's tax pledges to the American people. Most of us are very familiar with his promise. Most of us are familiar with his promise that no individual making less than $200,000 a year or a family making less than $250,000 a year would see any increase in their taxes. In fact, in his words, ``not by one dime''--not an increase of their income tax, their payroll tax, their capital gains tax. In his words, not any of their taxes. Yet we see hundreds of billions of dollars of these taxes falling squarely on the middle class. In a speech in Dover, NH, on September 12, 2008, President Obama said: Everyone in America--everyone--will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. This surtax clearly breaks that promise to millions of additional Americans. Recent press reports have suggested that, in a need for even more tax revenue to pay for all of the new spending in the Senate, the Senate leader may include an increase and an expansion of the Medicare payroll tax. The Medicare payroll tax is funded by a 2.9-percent payroll tax levied on every dollar earned by employees. Half of this tax is paid by the employee and the other half by the employer, although in reality, the entire burden falls on the employee because the tax is taken from the employee's available wages. Revenue from this tax goes into the Medicare trust fund and is intended to be used for Medicare expenses when that individual enters retirement. Under this new plan, Senate Democrats are considering applying this Medicare tax to capital gains, dividends, interest, royalties, and partnerships for American families earning more than $250,000. None of this income is currently subject to the Medicare payroll tax. In addition, Democrats are said to be contemplating raising the employee's share of this tax, currently 1.45 percent of wages, to 1.95 percent. Press reports indicate this would raise up to 40 or 50 billion new dollars in revenue. This proposal would make a bad bill even worse. It would fundamentally change the way Medicare financing occurs. By applying what has traditionally been a payroll tax to nonpayroll income and by using this money for a new non-Medicare entitlement, it breaks the link between the Medicare tax base and Medicare benefits. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, this new tax would ``sever the link between the tax paid over a lifetime and the medical benefits received, officially making Medicare an income redistribution program.'' It would additionally hurt growth. These additional taxes on savings and investment act as disincentives for these activities which are the primary drivers of wealth creation. It would kill jobs. Imposing these new taxes would hurt small businesses. Because many small businesses pay their taxes at the individual level, imposing higher individual income taxes hurts these engines of job creation. Finally, it doesn't fully finance health care shortfalls. According to Bloomberg, House Democrats rejected this proposal, now being considered by the Senate, ``because lawmakers concluded they may need to increase the payroll tax in the future to pay Medicare benefits that are projected to outpace revenue.'' The New York Times pointed out that ``the higher payroll tax would not be sufficient in the long run [to even protect Medicare].'' In closing, for all the talk about this need to rush the bill through so we can achieve the objective the American people seek in health care reform, the bill does not reduce the cost of medical care. It increases it. The bill does not reduce the cost curve for health care insurance. It increases it. And in accomplishing this, it also increases taxes across the board on Americans and cuts Medicare by deep rates that will cause Medicare to face insolvency even earlier than it otherwise would have. For all these reasons, we need to slow down and start working together, step by step, to remember the original objective; that is, to bend the cost curve down and stop these spiraling increases in health care insurance that Americans are facing and that are driving American families to the edge. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I, too, would like to talk about health care. As we speak here in the Senate, the House is preparing to debate and reportedly vote by late this week or early next week on a massive new health care bill that will dramatically expand the size of our government, dramatically increase taxes, and establish a government-controlled insurance system. While in the Senate we are not yet clearly aware of what the bill we will be debating is because it is still being crafted behind closed doors, we have an idea, and we are pretty sure some of the elements that are going to be included in it are the same elements we debated in the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee as those committees worked on their product here. In that context, we expect we will see also here in the Senate a massive new expansion of the size of government, up to $1 trillion or more. If it is anything like what the Finance Committee bill was, we will see taxes increased on the American public by over $500 billion, we will see cuts in Medicare, which we discussed yesterday, of over $400 billion, and a significant expansion of the control of the Federal Government over our health care economy. Today, I want to focus on just the tax piece of this situation. One of the most common provisions we have seen here in the Senate that we clearly expect will be in the final bill is the proposed 40- percent excise tax on high-cost or ``Cadillac'' health care plans. This has been defined as health care plans that are valued at more than $8,000 for an individual or valued at more than $21,000 for a family. It is important to note these thresholds are not indexed to the increasing cost of health care spending but instead are indexed to inflation plus 1, which means that over time this will, similar to the alternative minimum tax, eat further and further into the American public's health care plans, which will then be taxed. The Joint Tax Committee has scored this tax to generate $201 billion of revenue to pay for that portion, $201 billion of this new Federal spending proposal. Many think that because it is called an excise tax on health care plans, it is not going to impact them. They will be surprised to learn that in my questioning of the Joint Tax Committee, we were told the vast majority of this $201 billion tax is expected to be collected directly from the middle class, individuals who will be paying more income and payroll taxes. Let's figure out how that can be. It turns out that as we analyze the way this tax is going to work, employers that will face a 40-percent excise tax on the health care they provide to their employees will begin to adjust the value of their health care plans so they avoid the tax. As they do so, they will reduce the health care they are providing to their employees and, presumably--and we expect they will--increase the wages they are paying to their employees so their employees' net compensation is not changed. The result of that, though, is that since the health care portion of the compensation is not taxed and the income portion of an employee's compensation is taxed, the employee will actually pay higher taxes, both on the income and on the payroll tax level. Maybe a real-world example will demonstrate. In my State of Idaho, the Census Bureau says the median household income is about $55,000 per year. In this case, let's take an example of a single woman who currently earns $60,000 per year in annual compensation from her employer. We have an example represented by this chart. Let's assume she has a $10,000 valued health policy. Her total compensation package from her employer is going to be $60,000-$50,000 in wages and $10,000 in employer-provided health care benefits. She is taxed on $50,000 and gets the $10,000 health care benefit without taxation. What will happen in the bill, as I have indicated, is this $10,000 health care policy will be subject to a 40-percent excise tax. In order to avoid that excise tax, the company will simply react by reducing her health care policy to below $8,000 and increase her income. Let's put up another chart to see what the likely reaction of the employer will be: Not to pay the insurance fee, as many here are saying, but simply to skip that and direct her tax dollars to the Federal Government. If this new high-cost plan is to be enacted, the theory is her employer will make the adjustments to change her overall compensation package in a way that she ends up with higher wages. Let's put the next chart up to show how this would work. Under this proposal, her health care benefits are going to go down. Let's assume the company reduces her health care benefits from $10,000 in value to $6,000 in value and gives her the extra $4,000 in income. Her health care benefits will go down. She will pay more taxes because she now has $4,000 more of her package that is subject to compensation. The net value of her compensation will go down because of increased taxes. The result is, we are going to see millions of Americans pay this excise tax squarely in contravention of the President's promise that no individuals who make less than $200,000 will pay income taxes or payroll taxes or, in the President's words, ``any other kind of taxes.'' So we are clear on this, the estimates are that 84 percent of this tax is going to be paid by those who are earning less than $200,000 per year. As a matter of fact, if we look at those who make less than $50,000 a year, we expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million Americans will fall into this category. If we look at the number who make less than $200,000 per year, we expect that number will be above 25 million Americans who will be paying more taxes, both payroll and income taxes, and receiving less health care benefits from their employer. The net result is, the President's promise that one can keep their health care if they like it will not be honored because of this provision. People will see, necessarily, that their employers will begin reducing health care packages to make them fit the tax structure this bill will create. Secondly, there is the President's promise that if you make less than $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a family, you will pay no taxes under this proposal. As we have seen with this one example--and there are a number of other examples in the proposal being developed-- in this one example of $201 billion worth of the new taxes in the bill, those making less than $200,000 will pay over 80 percent of it, and it will come directly out of their pockets and their compensation package with their employer. In the time I have remaining, I wish to focus on one additional element. There is also a proposal to increase the bar for deductions of health care expenses. In other words, those who deduct their expenses and itemize their deductions can today deduct that portion of their income over 7.5 percent of their income that is represented by their health care expenses. This bill will increase that to 10 percent and generate over $15 billion of additional taxes in that format. Who is the most likely to pay these taxes? People who have relatively low health care costs are going to end up not meeting that 7.5-percent threshold, now to be brought to 10 percent, and probably will not be able to benefit from the deductibility of their health care. But those who face medical crises, those who have health care expenses that exceed the value of 10 percent, will see their deductibility reduced again by these proposals. The net result: Millions of Americans making less than $200,000 a year will pay more taxes. I encourage the Senate, as we move forward in the debate, to recognize that the tax provisions contained in it are squarely going to hit those in the middle class.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Medicare also in the context of the proposed health care reform we are dealing with in the Senate. This is one of the most troubling aspects of the health care reform proposals that are being considered in the Congress: the massive cuts to Medicare that will total, under the legislation that came out of the Finance Committee at least, about $500 billion in cuts and similar levels of cuts are included in all major legislation being moved at this point. In this time of economic downturn, all Americans must look to their budgets and to their own spending very carefully. The same is true for the Federal Government. Some will argue these Medicare cuts are necessary for fiscal responsibility and that everybody must play a part. Others are going to argue that Medicare is facing insolvency in 2017 and that these cuts are necessary to slow the growth of Medicare spending. In fact, the 2009 trustees report shows that Medicare's annual costs were 3.2 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States in 2008. To give a little bit of context, that is about three-quarters of Social Security's costs. These costs are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach 11.4 percent of GDP by 2083. The unfunded obligation of the Medicare hospital trust fund is $13.4 trillion, which is $1 trillion higher than even last year's estimate. And Medicare's total unfunded obligations, which include Part B and Part D programs, have reached $37.8 trillion. Yes, we do need to address the solvency issues related to Medicare. We must deal with it. But let's be clear about one thing: These proposals in these health care bills do not strengthen the solvency of the Medicare Program. These cuts accomplish one simple goal; that is, they take money from the Medicare Program in order to create a new entitlement program. The program is created at the expense of America's seniors. We are not shoring up Medicare for America's seniors with these bills; we are transferring $500 billion out of the Medicare programs into a new government entitlement program. A recent article described it like this: Let's imagine that Medicare is your family's overall budget. You have lived beyond your means and you have run up a huge debt. In order to deal with this new debt, your family thinks of creative ways to cut spending and reduce expenses and put some of your savings aside to catch up. Then, though, you see all this cash that you saved up and you would like to go out and buy a brandnew car. So instead of using the cash to help pay off your debts and your obligations and shore up your financial circumstances, you take this cash and go out and spend it on a brandnew car, in this case a government-run car. This is what is happening with the Medicare system in the bills before us. These cuts damage the existing program in order to create a new one, harming America's seniors along the way. They are negatively going to impact choice, access, benefits, and quality of care. When Americans said they wanted change, I don't think this is what they were talking about. Let's talk about a few specifics. Among the largest cuts to the Medicare Program are the $117 billion in cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program. Currently, there are nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which represents about one out of every four Medicare beneficiaries. In my home State of Idaho, there are more than 60,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries or 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries in the State. Since the creation of the Medicare Advantage Program in 2003, overall enrollment in private plans has been steadily increasing and beneficiaries across the country have had more private plans to choose from than they did 10 years ago. A 2007 study reported ``high overall satisfaction'' with the Medicare Advantage Program. Mr. President, 84 percent of respondents said they were happy with their coverage, and 74 percent would recommend Medicare Advantage to their friends or family members. According to Congressional Research Service, as of January 2009, all Medicare beneficiaries across the country had access to Medicare Advantage plans along with traditional Medicare plans. The choice is particularly crucial in rural areas. Between 2003 and 2007, more than 600,000 beneficiaries in rural areas joined the Medicare Advantage Program, which is a 426-percent increase. The Medicare Advantage cuts proposed in the Finance bill will force plans to cut benefits, increase premiums, or drop coverage altogether. In fact, CBO estimates that enrollment in Medicare Advantage will decrease by 2.7 million people by 2019, resulting from the changes in this proposed legislation. This number represents not only people who would lose their plan but also those who would no longer be able to choose Medicare Advantage because of the decrease in benefits. CBO estimates that the value of extra benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans will drop from $135 a month to $42 a month. When we were in the Finance Committee markup, I asked CBO Director Elmendorf to confirm this point. I asked him: So approximately half of the additional benefit would be lost to those current Medicare Advantage policyholders? His response was: For those who would be enrolled otherwise under current law, yes. The point is, the Medicare Advantage cuts in the Finance Committee bill will clearly break the President's pledge that if you like the insurance you have, if you like the protection you have, you can keep it. Even if some seniors on Medicare Advantage are able to keep their plans, they are not going to be able to enjoy the same level of benefits they enjoy today. During the Finance Committee markup, I offered an amendment that would have prohibited the implementation of the bill's Medicare Advantage provisions if their implementation would decrease choice and competition for seniors in Medicare--very simple and straightforward. The amendment was defeated on a straight party- line vote. Many congressional Democrats argue that by defending Medicare Advantage you are actually defending overpayments to insurance companies. That is not true either. Medicare Advantage plans are paid 14 percent more, on average, than traditional Medicare fee-for-service. However, these overpayments--or alleged overpayments--don't go into the plans. They go to the seniors enrolled in the plans in the form of extra benefits. That is why Medicare Advantage is so popular among seniors. Seventy-five percent of the additional payments to Medicare Advantage are used to provide seniors with additional benefits-- benefits such as dental coverage or vision coverage or preventive medicine or flu shots or hearing aids. The remaining 25 percent is returned to the Federal Government. So the cuts to Medicare Advantage will reduce benefits and will deprive seniors of choice. But that is not the only kind of cuts we have coming to Medicare. In addition to the cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program, the Finance Committee bill also contains massive cuts to other Medicare providers. It contains $40 billion of cuts to home health agencies, there are nearly $8 billion of cuts to hospice, and more than $16 billion of cuts to skilled nursing facilities. These levels of cuts would be devastating for providers and will threaten access as well. As more and more providers will not take Medicare patients, it will be harder and harder for beneficiaries to find care. I spoke to Gary Thietten, the president and owner of Idaho Home Health & Hospice, just last week about the impact of the Medicare cuts to home health and hospice. He described to me how bad the fiscal situation has become for home health, hospice, and other Medicare providers in Idaho. Idaho lost nearly 30 percent of its home care providers in 1998 and 1999, including the State's largest provider. The providers that are still in business in my home State are working under the same Medicare reimbursement levels they received in 2001--8 years ago. If the cuts from the Finance Committee bill go into effect, on top of the current reimbursement issues, the situation will get significantly worse for many providers, and the net result, again, would be a loss of providers, a loss of options, and a loss of services to our seniors. Costs have gone up considerably due to the economic downturn, and rural Idaho is being hit the hardest. Gary compared the situation for home health and hospice providers to the farmers in Idaho. Most farmers don't grow just one crop. Similarly, home health agencies don't provide just one service. They provide hospice and private-duty care, along with medical supplies and equipment. All of these services are going to suffer because of the home health and hospice cuts. These proposed cuts will not just affect providers in my home State, they will affect Medicare providers in every State around the country, particularly rural States, which already face significant provider access problems. At some point, providers will no longer be able to give the best care or any care, for that matter, to Medicare beneficiaries. As I indicated earlier, we have already seen the trend start with those medical service providers that simply can't afford to take Medicare patients. I have long supported policies that increase access to high-quality affordable health care for all Americans and provide for fair reimbursements to providers of the medical services rendered. However, the types of blunt, across-the-board cuts we see in these proposed bills will result only in increased harm to providers and to Medicare beneficiaries around the country. It is my hope that as we face these difficult times, and dealing with needed health care reform, we will not take the cuts out of the Medicare Program that are proposed in this legislation. Specifically, and importantly, it is critical that we not cut our Medicare beneficiary services in order to simply fund a new, massive government entitlement program. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

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

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish to talk this afternoon about health care and specifically the impact of some of the proposals we have on the cost of health care insurance. Before I do so, I think I must respond to some of the comments that were just made by the Senator from Michigan accusing the Republican Party of being the party of no. It seems we are starting to get to a point here where bipartisanship is not being achieved. But it seems the definition of bipartisanship is becoming ``either do it our way or you are the party of no.'' It seems to me what we need to really do is step back and take a couple of deep breaths and start working together on legislation. I will use the example the Senator from Michigan used, the unemployment insurance compensation legislation. As she correctly indicated, there were 87 votes to move forward with this legislation. This is not an effort to obstruct the legislation. The effort that caused us to slow down a couple of days on this legislation was an effort to improve it. In fact, had we not slowed down a couple days, the bill would have gone through and would have been passed, but it would not have the home buyer tax credit in it for the purchase of homes. It wouldn't have the net operating loss carryback provisions in it. They are both important provisions for creating jobs rather than just providing a safety net for those who lost jobs. The bill has been improved, and I think it will be further improved by the time we have the final vote. It is that process of give-and-take, trying to work on and improve the legislation, that occasionally causes the Republican side to say: No, we are not going to move forward until we have an opportunity to present some amendments and until we have bipartisan work to help improve the legislation. That is what happened in this case. In reality, the majority party has 60 votes. If they want to proceed on anything, they can do so. In this case, on the unemployment insurance bill, they did stop and allow us another couple of days to work on it and improve it with the home buyer tax credit and the operating net loss carryback provisions. Mr. President, I will now address the question of health care. It is interesting. One of the comments the Senator from Michigan also made was that we cannot get to the health care bill because we are spending our time on the unemployment compensation bill. The reality is that we don't even know what the health care bill is yet. The bill was crafted behind closed doors in the Capitol Building, and it is being scored by CBO. We don't know when CBO will have the full bill to score or whether the full bill has even been drafted. We don't know what it contains. That is in stark contrast to the President's commitment on how this process would proceed. The President stated in the San Francisco Chronicle in January of last year: These negotiations will be on C-SPAN . . . and the public will be part of the conversation and we will see the choices that are being made. He indicated that everybody should be in the room and it should be broadcast on C-SPAN. Instead, there is a very small group of people from the White House and the majority leader's office and probably a couple of senior Senators he is working with who know what is in the bill. The rest of us don't know. Frankly, the reason we are not moving to the bill has nothing to do with procedural maneuvers on the floor. It has to do with the fact that the bill is not drafted yet or prepared and ready to bring forward. Let me move to the actual bill itself. In this context, I have great concerns with the legislation that is being brought forward on many different fronts. It expands the Federal Government by about $1.2 trillion, depending on how you count it; some say up to $1.8 trillion. It imposes massive new taxes and cuts in Medicare of equal amounts to balance it off and make it appear it is not increasing the deficit. By cutting Medicare, it seriously jeopardizes the quality of health care we provide to our seniors in this Nation and, as I indicated, the massive new taxes that are involved, which fall squarely on the backs of the middle class, violating another one of the promises President Obama made. In doing so, it does not achieve the very objectives our citizens in the United States ask of us in health care reform. What am I talking about? That is what I want to focus the rest of my remarks on today. When you ask most Americans, Do we need to reform health care in the United States, they will say yes. What they mean when they say that is they are tired of the double-digit, skyrocketing inflation of the cost of their health insurance and the cost of medical care in the United States, and they think Congress should do something about it, that Congress should ``bend the cost curve down''--that is the phrase that has been made popular--and they believe Congress can do something about it and help control these skyrocketing costs of health care. They also believe we should try to find a way to get access to those who are needy and unable to purchase their own insurance. They know we are providing for the cost of health care for those who do not have insurance and they do get it in a much more expensive way and in a way that does not give them the quality of health care they should get. That is what Americans think of when they are asking for health care reform. But center in the focus of the American people out of what they want out of health care reform is control of the costs of health care and control of the skyrocketing costs of the insurance they pay. On that issue, the bills before us fail dramatically because not only do they grow the Federal Government, not only do they increase taxes, and not only do they deeply cut Medicare, they will increase the cost of health care insurance and increase the cost of medical services in our country beyond what growth they would have seen without the legislation. I will go through a couple of examples, focusing on the bill that went through the Senate Finance Committee. It includes, as I have indicated, significant amounts of taxes and different kinds of taxes on different parts of the economy. Both the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have stated that a number of the taxes included in the Senate Finance Committee bill will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. During the Finance Committee markup, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf stated: Our judgment is that that piece of legislation-- Referring to the provisions increasing taxes in this legislation-- would raise insurance premiums by roughly the amount of the money collected. Meaning in one of the particular cases there is a $6.7 billion tax imposed on insurance companies. His point is that $6.7 billion tax is going to raise the cost of insurance. Another example in the bill, there is a tax on medical devices. Both CBO and JCT have said this tax on medical devices will be passed on to patients, increasing their health insurance premiums and increasing the prices on everything from powered wheelchairs to pacemakers. Another example is the tax on insurers. I mentioned the tax on insurers is what generated this answer. CBO and Joint Tax have said this tax will be passed through, and some estimates on this passthrough show this tax on insurers could raise premiums for American families by as much as $500 a year. The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Senator Grassley last week in response to his inquiry about this provision and stated: While uncertainty exists, we assume that a very large portion of this excise tax on purchased insurance will be borne by consumers in most markets, including in some markets with a high level of concentration among market participants covered by the proposed excise tax. Still quoting the letter: While consumers or employers may respond by changing their insurance coverage from more expensive coverage to less expensive plans to offset any potential price increase, this behavior, too, is properly characterized as the consumers bearing the burden of the excise tax by accepting lower quality (for example, a more restricted physician network) for the same price rather than paying a higher price for the quality [that they would have had had there been] no tax. Again, still quoting from the letter: Our estimate is that the premiums for purchased health insurance policies, including the tax liability, would be between 1.0 and 1.5 percent greater than they otherwise would be as a consequence of the industry fee for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Joint Tax did not estimate the years beyond that and were not able to do a distributional analysis based on income as to where those with higher premiums would most likely fall. But we know, again, it is almost certain it will hit those in the middle class. Premiums are also going to rise because of the new excise tax on so- called Cadillac health plans. Many believe that companies will respond to this new tax by either passing the costs on to consumers or cutting benefits so the plan can avoid the tax. Inevitably, like the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, the impact of this tax will be passed along to more and more people, not just those with Cadillac plans, either in the form of higher costs or lower benefits. That is how the tax-and-fee provisions portion of the bill impact health insurance. And there are many more. But what other provisions in the bill impact the cost of insurance? The insurance mandates in the bill will have similar impacts on raising the cost of health care insurance for Americans. The Finance Committee bill also contains a number of market reforms that will result in these higher premiums. For example, the new federally mandated rating rules will result in a huge premiums increase for younger and healthier individuals. In my home State of Idaho, studies have shown that a 20-year-old male can go out today and buy a policy in the individual market for $67.63 a month. A 20-year-old female can buy a policy for $94.35 a month. If the insurance rating reforms in the Finance Committee bill are enacted, those exact same policies would rise to a level of $166.75 per month. That is a 147-percent increase for a 20-year-old male and a 77-percent increase for a 20-year-old female. These figures, frankly, are optimistic for several reasons. They assume that the young and healthy will continue to purchase insurance. If they do not continue to buy insurance, the premiums would likely be even higher than those which were shown in the studies. In addition, these rate estimates assume a 4-to 1 age rating band. The House bill introduced last week contains a 2-to-1 age rating band mandate, meaning that the rates for the young and healthy, again, would be made significantly worse. In addition, many of the proposals in Congress contain mandates about what an insurance policy must include. Here is an example of what we can see in that context: An older gentleman wanting to purchase insurance in the new exchange to be created may not be able to save money by enrolling in a more basic plan. Instead, it would not be possible for him to enroll in a policy that does not include maternity care and newborn care, something he may not want or need to purchase. The actuary firm of Oliver Wyman, in a study commissioned by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, concluded that insurance reforms in the bill and the minimum required benefit levels in the Baucus bill could drive up family premiums for new coverage by as much as $3,024. My point is, both the taxes and fees and the insurance mandates will generate higher premiums, not lower premiums, for Americans, exactly the opposite of what Americans are asking for in health care reform. Similarly, both the House bill and the Baucus bill, and what we expect to see in the Senate bill when it finally comes out, will have a significant expansion of moving those in lower income categories into Medicaid rather than providing a way for them to obtain insurance. The Baucus bill contains an enormous expansion of Medicaid, up to 133 percent of poverty. That means 14 million more people are going to be enrolled in the Medicaid Program, the largest expansion since it was created in 1965, a program that financially is going to hit the cliff soon. We know we are undercompensating for medical services in Medicaid, which ultimately results in those undercompensated costs of health care being borne by the rest of the insuring population in the United States with higher premiums. So what are we going to do? We are going to expand a program that drives a lot of its costs off onto the private sector so we can avoid the need to identify the way to move forward and develop a true reform that will enable those who are needy and uninsured to be able to obtain insurance. Instead, we are going to push them onto the Medicaid system and, again, drive up premiums. Those who are pushing this legislation have responded to some of these arguments by saying: The subsidies we are providing in the bill for those with lower incomes will help to reduce insurance costs. If you focus on those who receive the subsidies, of course, their insurance costs may go down. But this is true for only a very small number of Americans. The reforms in the Finance bill will raise health care costs for most Americans while lowering them for some through subsidies. But there are several important points to make on the subsidy argument. First, the credits and subsidies are only available for those who receive insurance through the new exchange. In other words, if you get your insurance through your employer, which most Americans do, you do not qualify for any subsidy support. CBO has estimated that only 23 million Americans will receive insurance in that fashion. If you do the math, that represents 8 percent of the 282 million nonelderly Americans. Why do we take the nonelderly number? Because elderly Americans are covered by Medicare. Let's put up a chart. The subsidies are not available for individuals who get insurance through their employer and, instead, those individuals will pay higher premiums for those who receive the subsidies. Here is the way it works out. You have about 185 million Americans who will be paying more taxes and higher health care premiums, and about 18 million Americans who will actually see their health care premiums go down because they will receive a Federal subsidy. While it is true that the subsidy will help reduce the health care costs of those who receive it, it is not true that the health care costs for every other American are going to go up, again I want to point out, in two significant ways. The 185 million Americans who are not participating in the subsidy will pay more in taxes--and significantly more in taxes--and will pay more in their health care insurance premiums. That is not the kind of reform, again, that the people of the United States are asking for. One last point, and that is about this proposal to have the Federal Government step in and create a government health care company. A government-run health care insurance company is promoted by saying we need a competitor for the private sector. I think most Americans see through that. But last week, CBO released their score of the House bill which creates just such a government-run health care company. Their score shows that the new government plan would typically have premiums that are higher than the average premiums for private plans. What is CBO saying? The CBO letter then states that although the government plan would likely have lower administrative costs than the private plans--which is one of the key arguments that is often made-- the government plan would--and I am quoting from CBO--``probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees,'' resulting in higher premium costs in the government plan. So now what do we have? We have a government plan into which we are going to push a lot of Americans, unwillingly, which will charge higher premiums than the private sector. We have taxes, penalties, fees, and mandates being imposed on the private sector that are going to drive up their premiums as well. It is all justified by the argument that we need to somehow create a government control of health care so we can reduce the costs. There are other ways to reduce the costs. I don't have time in my remarks today to get into those, but there are a number of proposals we do know about for which we have bipartisan support that will help us address that cost curve. It is my hope we will reject these proposals that take us down the wrong path and result in the wrong solutions for Americans in health care reform and begin focusing on what I started out with--that cost curve about which most Americans are so concerned. We can drive down that cost curve without raising taxes, and that is where this Congress ought to be spending its attention. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern from my office, Matthew Spencer, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I also rise to speak about the health care legislation the Senate is preparing to consider on the Senate floor. I will begin my remarks, as my colleague from Georgia has done, by referring to the bill which the Finance Committee has put out. This is it. It is 1,502 pages which, interestingly, we did not have before us when we considered it in the Finance Committee. I think most people in the country realize right now that as the Finance Committee proceeded through 2 full weeks of markup on this legislation, the legislation had not actually been written. Even though the very first amendment, which we brought, was an amendment to say that before we would be forced to vote on a bill, we should see the bill for 72 hours and have the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, score on the bill for 72 hours so that we and the American public could understand what was in it, that was not allowed. We cast our final votes in the Finance Committee on the Finance Committee's bill--well, the Finance Committee's concept paper. This bill didn't yet exist. We did have an idea about what concepts were intended to be in it, but the bill itself didn't exist. The reason I bring that up right now is because this is actually not going to be the bill we consider on the Senate floor. As soon as the Senate Finance Committee finished with this bill, the majority leader and the chairmen of a couple of the relevant committees--I presume with some personnel from the White House--got together behind closed doors in the Capitol Building and began drafting a new bill to merge this bill with a previous bill that had come out of the HELP Committee bill in the Senate. That new bill has now been sent to CBO for a score, but we don't know what is in it either. In fact, we are told it is concepts and options that are being submitted to CBO. I am not even sure if that new bill has yet been written, but I do know no one, except those who have submitted it to CBO, know what is in it. Well, we have a good idea of what is in the health care bill the Senate Finance Committee put out, and I expect a lot of what was in this Senate Finance Committee bill will make it into this new bill that someday maybe the American public and the rest of the Members of this Chamber will be able to see. As we approach the health care issue, I think it is important for us to understand exactly what it is we are expected to do by the American people and what it is we are doing with the health care legislation. Most Americans want health care reform. But when they say that, the vast majority of them mean they want Congress to take swift and decisive action to bring under control the spiraling costs of health care and the spiraling costs of health care insurance. As a part of that, they want to see increased access for those who are uninsured, whose burden of coverage and health care falls on the taxpayers. That is the core focus, the purpose behind the drive in America for health care reform. Well, what does the legislation we passed out of the Finance Committee do? With regard to the cost of insurance, it will not cause the cost of insurance to go down. It will, in fact, drive up the cost of insurance at even faster rates of growth than would have occurred without the legislation. What does it do for coverage of those who are uninsured? It establishes an extremely expensive new government program that would provide tax credits--or what are called renewable tax credits--for those at certain income levels to provide the ability for them to obtain coverage. But of the 47 million who are uninsured in the United States today, the bill still leaves approximately 25 million of them uninsured. What it does put into place for these two outcomes on the major reasons for reform--increased cost of insurance and only about 50 percent reduction of the uninsured--is a massive new amount of Federal control over the health care industry, a massive new entitlement program that will cost, according to CBO, approximately $829 billion of new spending, and then offsets that try to address the growing costs of the Federal Government that it represents by about $404 billion worth of cuts in Medicare and $506-or-so billion of new taxes, fees, and penalties. Remember the discussion I started with about the fact that the American people wanted to see the cost curve on health care bend down? We will hear it said that this bill bends down the cost curve. Well, it doesn't bend down the health care cost curve, and it doesn't bend down the health care insurance cost curve. All it does is try to address the impact of the phenomenal amount of new spending--$829 billion--by raising taxes and cutting Medicare in amounts that are greater than the amount of the cost in the bill. Well, what kind of impact will these increases in taxes have? First and foremost, I want to return to what my colleague, Senator Grassley, recently pointed out. In the discussion of this issue, President Obama made it clear as a candidate, and he has repeatedly made it clear as President, that he will not sign legislation that imposes a tax increase on people making less than $250,000 in the United States. These are his remarks on September 12 during the campaign in New Hampshire, which, again, he has repeated consistently: And I can make a firm pledge: No family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase--not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. Well, what does this bill do? This bill squarely increases the taxes on the middle class in the United States. The full tax burden of this bill, including all of the taxes and fees and penalties that are included in it, is over $\1/2\ trillion. Experts have now told us that the majority, in fact the significant majority of those taxes and those increased fees and penalties, will fall on the backs of those who make less than $250,000. We don't have the data yet, but, in fact, the impact on people who make less than $120,000 will be a huge portion of these new taxes and fees. Yet how can that be allowed to happen with the President making this pledge? I think the American people need to pay attention. In essence, what we have represented is a huge increase in spending in the Federal Treasury--$829 billion under the Finance Committee plan. It is expected to be closer to $900 billion under the plan that was devised recently and submitted to CBO. Nonetheless, it is a massive increase in Federal spending, matched by equally massive cuts and tax increases--cuts in Medicare and tax increases--to make it appear that the impact on the deficit is marginal. But don't be fooled. When those who support this approach defend it, they will tell us it bends the cost curve. The cost curve they are talking about is the cost to the Federal Government. They are not telling us the cost of the Federal Government--the expenditures of the Federal Government--will be going down. What they are telling us is the expenditures will not be going up faster than the taxes and the cuts in Medicare are going up. It is important for the American public to recognize that this legislation represents yet again one huge step of the Federal Government into management and control of the health care economy, and that huge new step of the Federal Government into management of the economy will be financed squarely on the backs of the middle class with a huge tax increase. That is not what America was asking for. So to summarize, Madam President, what do we have? We have a proposal that will not bend the cost curve; it will, in fact, cause the cost curve on which everyone in America is focusing--the cost of health care and the cost of insurance--to go up. It will not achieve universal coverage for those who do not have access to insurance today, but it will put the Federal Government much more in charge and control of our health care economy and will grow the Federal Government by nearly $1 trillion of new spending at the expense of $\1/2\ trillion of tax increases and $400 billion of Medicare cuts. That is not the kind of health care reform our Nation needs. It is not the kind of health care reform the American people have asked for. We should change the debate, and we should begin focusing on those kinds of common ground areas that we know how to identify where we can bend the cost curve--the true cost curve--down, where we can do so without raising taxes on the American people, and we can do so without devastating the Medicare programs of our country. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I am proud to honor and congratulate Idaho resident Dr. Forrest M. Bird for a lifetime of service and achievement. I had the pleasure today of meeting with Dr. Bird and his wife Pam, and very much enjoyed that short visit. Dr. Bird is well and widely known around the world for his lifesaving inventions: the Bird Mark 7 respirator, which was the first reliable and low-cost respirator in the world; and the Baby Bird respirator, which has greatly decreased infant mortality rates. In addition to being a brilliant inventor and scientist, Dr. Bird is a former pilot and founder of the Bird Aviation Museum and Invention Center, which is located in Sagle, ID, where his company, Percussionaire Corporation, produces his lifesaving medical devices. He has been the recipient of numerous awards, including two Lifetime Scientific Achievement awards, and has been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame. In 2008, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Bush and received the National Medal of Technology and Innovation by President Obama just this week. Dr. Bird's interest in aviation and his invention of the world- renowned Bird respirators are remarkably intertwined. His father served as a pilot in World War I, and, after earning a degree in aeronautics, Dr. Bird served as an Army Air Corps pilot in WWII. At the time, airplanes were designed to reach higher altitudes, but pilots were increasingly unable to breathe as the altitude increased. Dr. Bird's consideration of this problem, and his attendance at medical school after the war, eventually led him to the invention of the famous Bird respirator. In 2007, his twin interests of aviation and invention led him to open the Bird Aviation Museum and Invention Center. Clearly there is good reason for the impressive list of honors that Dr. Bird has received throughout his life. It has been a life of service that has made an incredible mark upon the world. His inventions have touched, transformed, enhanced and saved the lives of millions around the world. His museum provides a great service to his community by educating and inspiring young visitors and by bringing long-lost memories alive for older visitors. For his groundbreaking contributions to America and the world, Idaho is proud to have produced such an impressive citizen. We appreciate and honor his remarkable achievements.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I honor a woman who has contributed so much to the fabric of my home State of Idaho. Doris Wallace, the manager of the Eastern Idaho State Fair in Blackfoot, ID, will retire at the end of this month, following the completion of the 2009 Eastern Idaho State Fair. That will mark her 26th year with one of Idaho's most well-known fairs. The eastern Idaho State Fair covers 16 counties in eastern Idaho. Each county holds their individual county fairs with the blue ribbon winners advancing to competition at the Eastern Idaho State Fair. Doris is a hometown girl, born in Blackfoot and raised in Bingham County. She married Ray Wallace. Together they have three children: Nicole, Stephanie, and Todd. She began her career at the Eastern Idaho State Fair in 1983 when she began working as the office secretary. She was the ``front desk'' for the fair, and her personality, patience and friendliness represented the entire fair to those who entered her office to ask questions and complain about situations. In 1987, Doris became the assistant manager, where she became the center of the fair operations. Her responsibilities included the exhibitor's handbook, all financial transactions, commercial and concession vendors and coordinator for spring, summer, and fall events taking place on the fairgrounds. In 2000, Doris was promoted to fair manager by a five-member Fair Board. As manager, Doris used her years of experience to enhance an already-thriving annual event. She has encouraged participation of 4-H and Future Farmer of America projects and activities including the 4-H dog show, 4-H horse show, and 4-H livestock, canning, cooking and sewing demonstration projects. Future Farmers of America leave their classrooms on Friday to spend the day on the fairgrounds to personally experience and participate in judging competitions. In 2002, she was able to plan the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Eastern Idaho State Fair. She produced an extravaganza of historical and colorful memories, which have made the fair a family tradition for those living in eastern Idaho. Doris has competently managed fair operations of the Eastern Idaho State Fair, which attracts 250,000 fairgoers over the 8-day fair, beginning each year on Saturday proceeding Labor Day. Events include traditional horse pulling, pari-mutuel horse racing, Indian relay races, junior and adult rodeos, professional entertainers, petting zoos and educational exhibits. The traditional tractor pull, demolition derby, and extreme bike riders are all part of Doris's management responsibilities as she has provided a fair of diverse attractions for a fairgoing audience of diverse ages, backgrounds and interests. As manager, Doris supervises six full-time employees and approximately 400 employees during the fair week, including ticket takers, car parkers, custodial services, ground crews, and security. Throughout her life and particularly during her career at the Eastern Idaho State Fair, Doris has contributed enormously, both privately and professionally, to the fair community, the city of Blackfoot, and all of eastern Idaho. Please join me in congratulating Doris Wallace on her years of service at the Eastern Idaho State Fair and wishing her well in her pending retirement.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. First, I want to say I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to hold thorough hearings and to process this nomination. There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor's resume is impressive, with degrees from Princeton and Yale Law School. She then worked as an assistant district attorney, and later in private practice before serving as a U.S. district court judge, and currently as a U.S. circuit court judge. It is unfortunate the Senate confirmation process has reached a point where nominees with such extensive backgrounds are no longer comfortable candidly discussing their judicial philosophy and views on key issues. To date, I have received over 1,000 letters, e-mails, and phone calls from Idaho constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to Judge Sotomayor's nomination. Many of the concerns raised in this correspondence are similar to concerns I personally have about the nomination--concerns relating to the second amendment right to bear arms, concerns relating to judicial activism, concerns relating to whether foreign law should be utilized in interpreting U.S. statutes and our Constitution. It was my hope that through the committee hearings and my personal meeting with Judge Sotomayor and other evaluation of her writings and her judicial decisions that these concerns and those of my constituents could be addressed. Unfortunately, though, when it came to the key issues, Judge Sotomayor's testimony often lacked the substance necessary and was even contradictory to her own previous statements, rulings, and writings. I would like to discuss some of those areas of concern. Before I do so, though, I want to make it very clear that with this nomination, many are very rightfully proud that for the first time in our country's history we have a Latina nominated to our highest Court. And it must be noted that she is receiving and being afforded a clean up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate this week. As I indicated at the outset, it is unfortunate the confirmation process in the Senate has deteriorated so much over the last few years that others have not received similar opportunities. I am referring in this example to Miguel Estrada. Like Judge Sotomayor, Judge Estrada was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association when President Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit is often considered to be a stepping stone for Supreme Court nominations, and at that time many thought Judge Estrada would be a strong nominee, that he might be the first Latino nominated to the Supreme Court. Judge Estrada would have deserved such an opportunity as Judge Sotomayor does. Unfortunately, some on the left feared that scenario, and as a result there was a filibuster and Judge Estrada was never even allowed to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I make this point now just to remind us all that although there are many here who have concerns about some of the positions and philosophies Judge Sotomayor has, there has been no effort to deprive her of an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate on her nomination. It is important our country recognize this. Let me now turn to some of the issues I indicated earlier that are of concern. I know a number of my colleagues have spoken already about the issue of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is one of my most significant concerns. On July 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the second amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia, and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This ruling affirmed what common sense has told us all for a long time: that the second amendment was intended to ensure access to all law-abiding citizens for self-defense and recreation. Unfortunately, despite this ruling in Heller, Judge Sotomayor ruled in the Maloney case that the second amendment does not apply to the States. Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over my home State of Idaho and is often considered one of the most liberal courts in the land, has ruled the opposite way in a similar case, making it clear that second amendment rights are binding on the States. In Nordyke v. King, the Ninth Circuit held that the right to bear arms is ``deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.'' Additionally, the court found that the ``crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed [a] fundamental [right].'' Furthermore, and again even after the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller, Judge Sotomayor held that the second amendment does not protect a fundamental right. With regard to whether the second amendment applies to States, I do not believe any reasonable person believes that other freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights do not apply to the States, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Why is there a different standard or effort to try to keep the second amendment right to bear arms from being freely available to all individuals in the United States? The Supreme Court has held in a series of opinions that the 14th amendment incorporates most portions of the Bill of Rights as enforceable against the States. Despite that Heller addressed firearms laws in the District of Columbia and not in a particular State, the Supreme Court used State constitutional precedents for its analysis in Heller. In fact, the Court's ruling was based in part on its reading of applicable language in State constitutions adopted soon after our Bill of Rights itself was adopted and ratified. By doing so, the Supreme Court recognized that the second amendment was, in fact, a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. On the issue of whether the second amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, I am extremely concerned that a nominee for the highest Court in our land would make such an argument. I am very concerned that a nominee for the highest Court in our Nation could so construe the second amendment right to bear arms. This disregard of history and legal precedent is, to me, a clear sign of a penchant toward judicial activism. As I have said, to reach her decision in Maloney, Judge Sotomayor had to, and did, make a judicial finding that the second amendment right to bear arms is not a fundamental right. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a footnote, said it as well as I think it can be said. The Ninth Circuit Court said: The county-- Which in this case was the defendant which was seeking to implement some restrictions that were an infringement on the right to bear arms-- The county and its amici-- Those others who have filed briefs on the county's behalf-- point out that, however universal its earlier support, the right to keep and bear arms has now become controversial. Again, this is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals speaking. But we do not measure the protection the Constitution-- The Constitution-- affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of [our] Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain. That is the kind of correct analysis the Supreme Court has clearly guided us to with regard to the second amendment right to bear arms. Throughout Idaho and across the United States, many millions of Americans believe the second amendment is a fundamental right, and I am one of those. Soon enough, the Supreme Court will decide whether the second amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment to apply to the States. When that case is taken up, the Court will decide just how ``fundamental'' the second amendment is and whether States and communities can take away Americans' right to bear arms any time they want. I cannot support a nominee to the Supreme Court who does not recognize this fundamental right in our Constitution. For this reason, I must oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. In addition, with regard to the role of a judge and judicial activism, when it comes to her views on the proper role of a judge, once again Judge Sotomayor's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee appears to directly contradict her publicly stated words and philosophy expressed prior to her nomination. In 2003, when discussing her gender and heritage, Judge Sotomayor said: My experiences will affect the facts I choose to see as a judge. In another previous speech, she said: Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. This is simply shorthand for judicial activism and making policy rather than applying the law--exactly what the Ninth Circuit said courts were not to do. To defend against this very notion, however, justice is supposed to be blind. Indeed, Lady Justice is depicted with a blindfold. To judge by selectively choosing which facts to emphasize is akin to lowering the blindfold and taking a peek, thereby rejecting equal justice under the law. Those who are called to judge must adhere to the rule of law no matter what they personally think the law should be or what the outcome of a particular case should be. After she was nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor told the Judiciary Committee: My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case. So we are left to wonder what has caused this contradiction, and whether she still believes that judges may choose to see the facts they want to see to get the result they want to get. Also, I indicated I had a concern about foreign law. Another very puzzling contradiction in Judge Sotomayor's testimony involves the issue of judges looking to foreign law when deciding cases. In her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Sotomayor said: I have actually agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with respect to the things American law permits you to. However, in March of this year, in a speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico, she did not seem to agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas when she said: And that misunderstanding is unfortunately endorsed by some of our Supreme Court justices. Both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have written extensively criticizing the use of foreign and international law . . . in Supreme Court decisions. How can you ask a person to close their ears? Ideas have no boundaries. Ideas are what set our creative juices flowing. They permit us to think, and to suggest to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that's based on a fundamental misunderstanding. What you would be asking American judges to do is to close their minds to good ideas. . . .Unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, and by international cases, we are going to lose influence in the world. Mr. President, I do not agree. In fact, that a nominee to the highest Court in our land would say that our Constitution and our statutes in America may be interpreted by reliance on foreign law is alarming. The Supreme Court is charged with deciding the constitutionality of a law or interpreting it in the context of our American system of justice, not in accordance with selectively chosen foreign laws, which are numerous, contradictory, and often inconsistent with American jurisprudence. How else would a judge choose among these various foreign laws and precedents other than selecting those that align with that judge's personal opinion? Mr. President, I have raised three issues today that have caused me very significant concern: Judge Sotomayor's interpretation of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, clearly written after the Supreme Court of the United States has given the guidance necessary for us to resolve the issue; her penchant toward choosing facts, enabling a judge or Justice, in this case, to reach the outcomes they want regardless of the way the law should be applied and the outcome that the law would otherwise require; and her willingness to allow American jurisprudence to be determined at the highest levels in our land by reliance on foreign law, foreign cases, and foreign precedent. For these reasons, I cannot support President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. When we get to the vote on it this week, I will cast a ``no'' vote. I recognize the likelihood is her nomination will proceed and be confirmed, but it is my keen hope and conviction the issues I have raised and that many others have raised today will be heard and that, regardless of the outcome of the vote in the Senate this week, Judge Sotomayor, if she is confirmed, and all Justices on the Supreme Court will continue to recognize the fundamental nature of our right to bear arms under the second amendment; that they will focus on the proper role of judges not in creating law but in interpreting the law, and that they will decline to rely on foreign law to interpret and to create American jurisprudence. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act. I would first like to thank Senator Bill Nelson for his leadership on this extraordinary piece of legislation, which gives algae-based biofuels the same tax incentives that cellulosic biofuels currently enjoy. Specifically, the bill would provide a $1.01 per gallon tax credit and offer 50 percent bonus depreciation for property used in the production of algae-based biofuels. In short, this legislation will level the playing field for algae, resulting in enhanced development and commercialization. Recent technological advances have showcased the tremendous potential of algae as a renewable fuel source. Algae-based biofuels can be refined into gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. These fuels are renewable, have a low-carbon footprint, and can fit seamlessly into our existing energy infrastructure. Additionally, algae does not compete for arable land or potable water. Algae grows best in very sunny climates, making the desert an ideal place for production, and it utilizes saltwater, not freshwater, to grow. It also has a short-life cycle and high oil content. Algae-based renewable fuels will play an important role in America's clean energy portfolio, and provide an answer to the question of how we will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and increase our domestic security. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act. I would first like to thank Senator Bill Nelson for his leadership on this extraordinary piece of legislation, which gives algae-based biofuels the same tax incentives that cellulosic biofuels currently enjoy. Specifically, the bill would provide a $1.01 per gallon tax credit and offer 50 percent bonus depreciation for property used in the production of algae-based biofuels. In short, this legislation will level the playing field for algae, resulting in enhanced development and commercialization. Recent technological advances have showcased the tremendous potential of algae as a renewable fuel source. Algae-based biofuels can be refined into gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. These fuels are renewable, have a low-carbon footprint, and can fit seamlessly into our existing energy infrastructure. Additionally, algae does not compete for arable land or potable water. Algae grows best in very sunny climates, making the desert an ideal place for production, and it utilizes saltwater, not freshwater, to grow. It also has a short-life cycle and high oil content. Algae-based renewable fuels will play an important role in America's clean energy portfolio, and provide an answer to the question of how we will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and increase our domestic security. Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to and recognize the passing of a remarkable citizen from my home State of Idaho, Dr. Taylor Henry Carr. He served his country as a gunnery officer in the Navy and he served his community as a doctor and philanthropist. He was a prime example of an American father, citizen, and patriot. He was also my uncle, and I am proud to be his nephew. As a doctor, he did much for the families of Idaho Falls, and, as a philanthropist, he did much for the community itself. Idaho Falls will miss him but will continue to benefit from the efforts of all those whom he influenced. Dr. Carr's accomplishments attest to his contribution to his community and country. He was a Boy Scout and a gunnery officer in the Navy. He was editor of his college newspaper and student body president. He earned an undergraduate degree in pharmacy and a graduate degree in medicine. Over the course of his career, he served in many different roles including director of the Idaho Cancer Society, president of staff at Sacred Heart Hospital, and on the Board of Directors of the ISU Alumni Association. Dr. Carr's favorite activities included fishing, golfing, skiing, and reading. He was a devoted husband to his wife Betty and a loving father to his seven children. In 2003, the Carr family won the Idaho Falls Arts Council's annual Support of the Arts award for contributions to the Eagle Rock Art Museum, the renovation of the Museum of Idaho, and the Willard Arts Center, the main gallery of which is named after Taylor and Betty Carr. I remember, when I was young, spending as much time at my Uncle Carr's house as at my own. I learned a lot from him, as did so many others. He always expected you to be and do your best so as to better live up to your potential. Taylor Henry Carr fully lived up to his potential before passing away on April 24, 2009. He was an excellent example of the great citizens produced by my home State and his life is an excellent example for all Americans to follow.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague, Senator Lincoln, to congratulate the 2008 winners of the Alfred P. Sloan Award for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility, which recognizes companies that have successfully used flexibility to meet both business and employee goals. Our offices coordinate and lead the Senate Staff Work Group on Workplace Flexibility, now in its 8th month. Since September 2008, our staff and that of at least 16 of our colleagues and as many as four different committees have gathered once a month to hear from research experts and listen to first-hand employer and employee experience on this important issue facing our Nation's workforce and families today. It is our goal to better define the appropriate role of government in this equation, moving from there to achieve bipartisan policies that help and do not frustrate families or hinder businesses. The Sloan Awards are an important component in the national shift toward employment policies that work better for both employers and employees as this Nation faces the reality of dual income households struggling to balance the multiple time commitments of children, disabled or aging family members and their jobs. The Sloan Awards are presented by the When Work Works initiative, which is a project of the Families and Work Institute in partnership with the Institute for a Competitive Workforce, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Twiga Foundation Inc. The When Work Works initiative is sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The companies receiving Sloan Awards are to be commended for their excellence in providing workplace flexibility practices which benefit both employees and employers. Achieving greater flexibility in the workplace, the goal of which is to maximize productivity while attracting the highest quality employees, is a key challenge facing American companies in the 21st century. Businesses in the following 30 cities were eligible for recognition in the 2008 Sloan Awards: Atlanta, GA; Aurora, CO; Birmingham, AL; Boise, ID; Brockton, MA; Chandler, AZ; Charleston, SC; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Dayton, OH; Detroit, MI; Durham, NC; Houston, TX; Lexington, KY; Long Beach, CA; Long Island, NY; Louisville, KY; Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL; Milwaukee, WI; Morris County, NJ; Providence, RI; Richmond, VA; Rochester, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; San Francisco, CA; Savannah, GA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; Washington, DC; and Winona, MN. The Chamber of Commerce in each city hosted an interactive business forum to share research on workplace flexibility as an important component of workplace effectiveness. In these same communities, businesses applied and winners were selected for the Sloan Awards through a process that included employees' views as well as employer practices. Together, we congratulate the 2008 winners of the Alfred P. Sloan Award for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility. In Atlanta, GA, the winners are Alston + Bird LLP; BDO Seidman, LLP; Cobb County Convention and Visitors Bureau; Ernst & Young LLP; KPMG LLP; Merrick & Company; North Highland; and Sprint. In Aurora, CO, the winners are Arapahoe/Douglas Works! Workforce Center; Aurora Chamber of Commerce; Medical Center of Aurora and Centennial Medical Plaza; and Merrick & Company. In Birmingham, AL, the winners are Allstates Technical Services; AQAF; Barfield, Murphy, Shank, & Smith PC; Concept, Inc.; Deloitte; Ernst & Young LLP; ITAC Solutions; Birmingham Metropolitan YMCA; One Stop Environmental, LLC; Resources Global Professionals; and Sellers, Richardson, Holman & West, LLP. In Boise, ID, the winners are American Geotechnics; Business Psychology Associates; Children's Home Society of Idaho; Givens Pursley LLP; LeMaster Daniels PLLC; Merrick & Rowley Accounting, LLC; and Trey McIntyre Project. In Brockton, MA, the winner is KGA, Inc. In Chandler, AZ, the winners are A & S Realty Specialists; Arizona Interactive Media Group; Arizona Weddings Magazine & Website; BCD Low Voltage Systems; The Chandler Chamber of Commerce; Clifton Gunderson LLP; Dava & Associates, Inc.; Henry & Horne, LLP; IBM; Intel; Johnson Bank; Keats, Connelly & Associates Inc.; MDI; Microchip Technology Inc.; New Horizons Independent Living Center; Omega Legal Systems, Inc.; Point B; Prescott Transit Authority; RIESTER; Salt River Materials Group; Western International University; WhitneyBell Perry Inc.; Wist Office Products; and WorldatWork. In Charleston, SC, the winners are Booz Allen Hamilton LLP; Community Management Group; KFR Services, Inc.; LS3P Associates LTD.; Noisette Company, LLC; and Scientific Research Corporation. In Chicago, IL, the winners are AzulaySeiden Law Group; BDO Seidman, LLP; Deloitte; Ernst and Young LLP; Frost, Ruttenberg & Rothblatt, P.C.; IBM--Central Region; KPMG LLP; Microsoft Corporation--Midwest District; National Able Network; Perspectives, Ltd; Plante & Moran, PLLC; Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman LLP; Shakespeare Squared; Teen Living Programs; True Partners Consulting; Turner Construction Company-- Chicago Business Unit; Type A Learning Agency; and Vox, Inc. In Dallas, TX, the winners are Aguirre Roden, Inc.; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company; BDO Seidman, LLP; The Beck Group; Community Council of Greater Dallas; Deloitte; Grant Thorton LLP; KPMG LLP; Lee Hecht Harrison; McQueary Henry Bowles Troy, L.L.P.; State Farm Insurance Companies; Symbio Solutions, Inc.; and Workforce Solutions Greater Dallas. In Dayton, OH, the winners are Barco, Inc.; Deloitte; and LJB Inc. In Detroit, MI, the winners are Albert Kahn Family of Companies; Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, The Children's Center of Wayne County; BDO Seidman, LLP; Detroit Regional Chamber; The Farbman Group; Image One; Lee Hecht Harrison; Menlo Innovations; Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration--MIOSHA; Mill Steel Company; and Peckham Inc. In Durham, NC, the winners are The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants--AICPA; CrossComm, Inc.; Durham's Partnership for Children, a Smart Start Initiative; McKinney; North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company; The Shodor Education Foundation; Skanska USA Building Inc.; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In Houston, TX, the winners are Continental Airlines; Deloitte; El Paso Corporation; Fulbright & Jaworski LLP; Hall Barnum Lucchesi Architects; Klotz Associates, Inc.; KPMG LLP; Pannell Kerr Forster of Texas, P.C.--PKF Texas; Rice University; St. Luke's Episcopal Health System; The VIA Group LLC.; University of Phoenix; and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. In Lexington, KY, the winners are Ashland Terrace Retirement Home; Benefit Insurance Marketing; JRA Architects; Lexmark International, Inc.; Potter & Company, LLP; Smiley Pete Publishing; United Way of the Bluegrass; and Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP. In Long Beach, CA, the winners are AES Alamitos, LLC; Healstone; HR NETwork, Inc.; KPMG LLP; Long Beach Rescue Mission; and PeacePartners. In Long Island, NY, the winners are Albrecht, Viggiano, Zureck & Co., PC; The Alcott Group; Child Care Council of Nassau, Inc.; Deloitte; KPMG LLP; and YES Community Counseling Center. In Louisville, KY, the winners are A Speaker For You; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Deming Malone Livesay & Ostroff CPAs, Girl Scouts of Kentuckiana Inc.; KPMG LLP; McCauley, Nicholas & Company, LLC, CPAs; Metromojo.com; Prestige Healthcare; Pro-Liquitech International; Strothman & Company PSC; and Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, L.L.P. In Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL, the winners are Brevard Workforce Development Board, Inc.; Craig Technologies; Hoyman Dobson; Kinberg & Associates, LLC; Mercedes Homes; and Space Coast Early Intervention Center. In Milwaukee, WI, the winners are Clifton Gunderson LLP; Deloitte; Ernst & Young LLP; Kahler Slater; KPMG LLP; Laughlin/Constable; Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce; Robert W. Baird & Co; Tushaus Computer Services, Inc.; Urban Ecology Center; and West Bend. In Morris County, NJ, the winners are Berkeley College; Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C.; Girl Scouts of Northern New Jersey; KPMG LLP; Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP; Shade Tree Garage; and Solix Inc. In Providence, RI, the winners are Embolden Design, Inc.; KPMG LLP; Lefkowitz, Garfinkel, Champi & De Rienzo PC; Narragansett Bay Commission; Quality Partners of Rhode Island; Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc; and Sansiveri, Kimball & McNamee LLP. In Richmond, VA, the winners are Bon Secours Richmond Health System; Capital One, Hilb Rogal & Hobbs--HRH; Lee Hecht Harrison; Rink Management Services Corporation; and Virginia Commonwealth Health Systems--VCUHS. In Rochester, MN, the winners are Cardinal of Minnesota; Custom Alarm/Custom Communications, Inc.; First Alliance Credit Union; IBM; RSM McGladrey, Inc. and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Southeast Service Cooperative; Stanley Jones & Associates, Inc.; Venture Computer Systems; and Winona State University--Rochester. In Salt Lake City, UT, the winners are 1-800 CONTACTS; AAA Fair Credit Foundation; Cactus & Tropicals; Cafe Rio Mexican Grill; Cooper Roberts Simonsen Associates, Inc.; Employer Solutions Group; Governor's Office of Economic Development; Intermountain Financial Group/Mass Mutual; Intermountain Healthcare; McKinnon-Mulherin, Inc.; Redmond, Incorporated; SelectHealth; and Stayner, Bates & Jensen. In San Francisco, CA, the winners are Fenwick & West LLP; KPMG LLP; Lee Hecht Harrison; Mother Jones Magazine/Foundation for National Progress; Presynct Technologies, Inc.; Sirna Therapeutics, Inc.; and Woodruff-Sawyer & Company. In Savannah, GA, the winner is Environmental Services, Inc. In Seattle, WA, the winners are BabyLegs LLC; Bader Martin, P.S.; BECU; Blue Gecko, Inc.; Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc.; Deloitte; EarthCorps; MarketFitz, Inc.; National CASA Association; NRG::Seattle; The Puget Sound Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology; Seattle Hospitality Group; Washington Health Foundation; WithinReach; and Worktank. In Spokane, WA, the winners are Career Path Services; Humanix Staffing and Recruiting; and Inland Northwest Health Services. In Washington, DC, the winners are Booz Allen Hamilton; Capital One; Clovis; Craig Technologies; Discovery Communications, Inc.; KPMG LLP; List Innovative Solutions, Inc.; and Morgan Franklin Corporation. In Winona, MN, the winners are Catholic Charities of the Diocese on Winona; Hiawatha Broadband Communications; Management Recruiters of Winona; Mediascope, Inc.; Sport & Spine Physical Therapy of Winona; Winona ORC Industries; and Winona Workforce Center.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today I would like to honor a fellow Idahoan who served the Idaho legislature, the Idaho, judiciary, the Episcopal Diocese of Idaho and the Idaho State Bar with honor, integrity, and good humor. M. Allyn Dingel, Jr., passed away at his home in Boise, ID, on April 23, 2009 after a courageous battle with lung cancer. Allyn was born in Twin Falls, ID, where he played baseball and was the student body president at Twin Falls High. He attended college at the University of Idaho, and continued to organize spontaneous renditions of the Idaho Vandal fight song, whether asked to or not. Allyn attended New York University Law School, where he was one of the top students and was a member of the NYU Law Review. Allyn worked for the Idaho Attorney General's Office for 3 years, and then spent more than 40 years in private practice. In his spare time, he served as Chancellor for the Episcopal Diocese of Idaho, providing extensive legal services pro bono. Allyn was a trial lawyer, and the courtroom was his stage. His methods were not always conventional. He had his own vocabulary, and a way of communicating that was sometimes humorous, but always believable. Allyn was a lawyer's lawyer. He was a fellow of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. He served as Idaho's representative to the Ninth Circuit Commission, and was Idaho's delegate to the American Bar Association House of Delegates. The Idaho State Bar honored him in 2004 when he was named its Distinguished Lawyer, and in 2008 the Idaho Judiciary named a courtroom in Boise after him. Allyn was a lobbyist for both the insurance industry and the Idaho judiciary. He was especially effective as a lobbyist because he never forgot a political story or a point of Idaho trivia. As a lobbyist, he was generous with his humor and his story-telling. Shortly before his death, the Idaho legislature honored him with Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 111, which commended him for his lifetime service to the legislative branch of the State of Idaho. But for all of Allyn Dingel's many accomplishments, he will be remembered most for his great compassion and his ability to find the good in people. It was said that he never forgot, but he always forgave. We can imagine him at the Pearly Gates telling St. Peter some long story about Idaho politics. We just hope those in line behind him were patient as he tried to teach St. Peter the words to the Vandal fight song. I am honored to reflect on Allyn Dingel's wonderful, exemplary life, and pleased to call him my friend. He was an individual who made the most from the opportunities that presented themselves, and Idaho is better for that. My condolences go out to his family: his beloved wife Fran, his sons and their wives, Bryan and Valencia and Mike and Lori, and his six grandchildren.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I wish first to indicate to the Senator from Louisiana that I agree with her comments. I think the last time I got up to speak on this energy issue she was here on the floor as well. I share her sentiments about the need for us to continue to focus on developing a rational national energy policy for our Nation. On July 30 last year, I stood before this body to talk about the No. 1 issue in the country to the people at that time: energy. Gasoline prices were over $4 a gallon and surging, and Americans were wondering what their leaders in Washington, DC, were going to do to help. I place tremendous faith in the opinions and ideas of Idahoans. So in early July I asked my constituents to write to me and tell me what they thought we ought to do and to describe to me what the impact of our failure to have a reasonable national energy policy was having on their lives. Then I made a promise that I would submit their stories to the Congressional Record, a process I vowed to continue until all of their stories had been submitted. In total, I received over 1,200 responses from my State, 600 almost overnight. It has taken me nearly 10 months to get all of these stories entered into the Congressional Record due to the requirements of the Congressional Record limitations as to how much can be submitted each day. Today I submit the last of those stories, and I want to share with you what we have learned. I received touching stories from Idahoans about how they have been negatively impacted by higher energy prices, and the stories indicate that high energy prices had impacted every aspect of their lives. Idahoans had to cut back on family time. Many were unable to visit elderly relatives and had to cut back on family activities together outside of the home such as sports or music lessons. But those were just some of the less serious challenges Idaho families faced. Many had to cut back on their home repairs, their air conditioning, and their contributions to their retirements plans. Many had to make a decision between whether to eat food or to pay for the gasoline they needed to get to their work and keep their job or to purchase needed medications. I can remember one story of a young mother telling me how she and her husband had started eating much less so that their children could have enough to eat, and they could still have enough gasoline each week to get to work and keep their jobs. Many of their stories were heart wrenching. Many talked about losing their jobs and being forced to relocate or to make decisions between, as I indicated, purchasing gas or eating their next meal. Many reduced their expenses, cut their luxuries and found ways to economize. But the dramatic increase we experienced last year brought Idaho families, as many in other States, to their knees asking for help. They offered explanations about what has happened and offered links to various publications and videos they found helpful. They attached photos of their circumstances. They sent legislative resolutions from national, State and local entities to remind us that other legislators around the country were interested in finding solutions to this issue as well. Many of them have spent a lot of time and energy on this subject, researching energy options and sharing their opinions on what they have learned. They offered solutions. My constituents suggested we need more conservation, that we need more domestic drilling. They wanted more public transportation and more nuclear power options. They pushed for additional renewable and alternative energy sources and research. In short, they came through with the kind of common sense that people all across this country have been sharing with this Congress on the need for energy solutions. They want us to be less dependent on petroleum, and they want us to be less dependent on foreign sources of this petroleum. They want us to have a broad, diverse energy base of renewable and alternative fuels, including strong support for nuclear power. But above all, they were angry at Congress for not dealing with the issue of high energy prices. They couldn't believe the country had been through an energy crisis before but that Congress still has not managed the issue and come up with a solution. Idahoans expressed frustration with partisan politics and the inability to move past the age-old arguments and reach consensus on a comprehensive energy policy. Many said they were grateful I had asked for their thoughts. I come before the Senate to echo my constituents' comments and concerns about our energy policy and to offer solutions. As I stand before the Senate, we are no closer to a comprehensive energy policy than we were last July. Yet economic indicators point to a rally in crude oil prices. Oil is now above $58 a barrel and gas prices are the highest they have been in 6 months. We don't need a repeat of last summer. We need to work together to craft a comprehensive energy policy that promotes domestic security and creates American jobs while providing energy at the lowest cost possible to consumers. The key to the energy future is to take a balanced approach that includes domestic production, conservation, renewables, nuclear, and alternative fuel development. I would like to conclude my remarks by repeating my constituents' desire for the kind of bipartisanship that can transform this country's energy policy. I welcome the opportunity to work with all my colleagues on this issue. I encourage us not to a get into another energy crisis such as we faced last summer, with Congress having failed to take the important steps it can to help America become energy independent and a strong supplier of its own energy resources. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped following the submissions, those prices are now on the way back up and the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. Today marks the last of the submissions, a process that has taken approximately ten months to complete. But this concern--our national energy policy--is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. These stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chairman. I look forward to working with him.