Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Perkins Act is a central part of a combination of federal education and training programs that provide opportunities for lifelong learning to our workforce. The Perkins Act, together with the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and other federal education programs, provides the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare students of all ages for jobs in high-wage and high-skilled occupations. In this technology driven, global economy, everyone is a student who must adapt to the changing needs of their jobs and the workforce by continuing to pursue an education in their chosen field. In turn, Congress must ensure that education and training are connected to the needs of business, including small businesses, now and into the future as well. It is my hope that this body will take the necessary action to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. The Act is an essential part of a combination of federal education and training programs that will strengthen our workforce and enable America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy. At a hearing held on June 24, 2004, before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, members heard testimonies from leaders in career and technical training emphasizing the importance of constant training, retraining and upgrading of the skills today's jobs require. Many students leaving high school or college and entering the workforce find that they are unprepared for life because they lack the skills they need to succeed in the workforce. This country created over 1 million new jobs since January. That's great news. Unfortunately, the complaint heard from employers is that there are too few skilled workers to meet their needs. We have a strong interest in making sure this is corrected. The Perkins Act, along with the Higher Education and Workforce Investment Act would provide both strong academic and relevant job skill training to promote and sustain the long-term competitiveness of this country. A unique aspect of the Perkins program that addresses the needs of the changing workforce is that it targets funds to both secondary and postsecondary schools. This unique aspect also provides a good platform from which we can better coordinate workforce preparation policy and training with an emphasis on lifelong learning. It is essential to facilitate a sequence of career or technical education courses that a student can complete before they even get to college, and that they can continue at the postsecondary level, whenever they decide to go on. Dr. Michael Rush, the Idaho Division of Professional-Technical Education, Boise, ID, Administrator, used the example of student Chelsie Lea Marier in his testimony to stress this point. He said Chelsie took professional-technical classes in welding, auto technology, mechanics and power technology at her home high school, Meridian High. As a high school senior, she enrolled in an automotive collision repair program at the Dehryl Dennis Technology Center. During this time, Chelsie took advanced placement academic classes and was President of her Skills-USA chapter. She is now enrolled in the auto body program at the College of Southern Idaho, and she intends to continue her education and become an auto collision forensics investigator. She is an excellent example of how linking academic and technical skills attainment can lead to success in the workforce. In order to strengthen schools programs at both the secondary and postsecondary level that meet local workforce needs, provisions in the Perkins Act must include the participation of business, including small business. In my home state of Wyoming, a career and technical education instructor by the name of Ted Schroeder is doing a lot of what I've just described. He has met with the local Chamber of Commerce in Rock Springs, WY, to identify workforce needs and matched his programs with industry standards to meet those needs. When the local business community suggested they needed students with computerized accounting skills, he took on the task of designing curriculum to help his students acquire the skills the businesses had requested. His efforts are a good example of what Perkins funds are intended to accomplish. It is my hope that we can increase the successes of the Perkins program, just like Ted has done in the community of Rock Springs. I'm pleased to have worked with the Members of the Committee and stakeholders on a bipartisan bill that will improve the Perkins Act to better meet the needs of students, workers, and business. The legislation I am introducing today, with my colleagues Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Alexander, Dodd, Jeffords, Bingaman, Murray, Sessions, Reed and Clinton, will help strengthen the Perkins program by improving accountability, involving businesses in career and technical education programs, emphasizing challenging academic instruction, and advancing the field of career and technical education by linking those programs to advances in industry. This legislation would also encourage greater collaboration between state agencies responsible for education and workforce activities. This legislation requires state agencies to work together on identifying the needs of the workforce and designing curriculum to match those needs. It also emphasizes the needs of nontraditional students and other lifelong learners, who are returning to school for the first time, or those who are seeking additional skill training. This legislation also continues to emphasize the need to introduce women and girls to high skill, high wage jobs. It is important that we help expand the vision of our students to ensure they consider all the options that are available to them, not just the ones that fit general, and sometimes erroneous, conceptions. I hope our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference. I do not wish to see another piece of bipartisan legislation lost in the legislative limbo of election year politics. An important step that the Senate must take is to appoint conferees to finish the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. That program offers the resources that are needed to help adequately prepare more than 900,000 unemployed workers find work each year. It passed the Senate unanimously, both in Committee and the floor. Conferees must now be appointed before the August recess. It we are going to help workers in this country, we must send this important legislation to Conference so that it will ultimately reach the President and be signed into law. I cannot stress enough the importance of federal initiatives like the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act to keep American workers and businesses competitive. The Perkins Act can help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. It is essential that we take advantage of the opportunity we have during this reauthorization process to improve the link between education and relevant academic and skills preparation. By so doing, we will create a pathway to prosperity for American workers and businesses alike, that both will make good use of for years to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk which are due for a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be given a second reading en bloc, and then in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings on the measures en bloc at this time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 596, 597, and 598, en bloc.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of my good friend, William G. Myers III. I recommend him highly, and I believe the United States Senate should approve his nomination to serve as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has earned that position by his dedication and a remarkable record of service to the country and to our legal system. I am concerned we won't hear about his impressive record, however, I am afraid we are going to hear a lot of needlessly harsh rhetoric about Bill being a radical who has only represented extreme conservative interests during the course of his outstanding legal career. That isn't the truth, of course, but it does make for good soundbites and unfortunately, that is often what is promoted as the truth. The truth is that Bill is not a radical extremist, nor does he have a political agenda that he is trying to pursue in agreeing to be nominated for the Ninth Circuit. A radical judge would be one who is intent on making extreme, sweeping changes in the political and social make up of the west. A radical judge is someone who stands out as being significantly different from the community he represents, who pursues his ideology regardless of its impact on those affected by his actions, and who doesn't care if his actions do not represent the interests of the people he serves. No, Bill is not a radical for he is none of those things. In fact, he is quite the opposite. He is someone who has lived and worked with the people of the West. He knows them, respects them, and he understands the demands they face every day as they try to make a living. He knows their dreams and he shares their values. He is looking to serve on the bench to make life better for them and for all those in the West who will be affected by his decisions. It is unfortunate that this is an election year. Any other year and we would see Bill for who and what he is. We would see him, not as a radical, but a typical Westerner who has a well established and outstanding reputation for his work representing the West. Who else shall we appoint to the Ninth Circuit to truly represent the typical West? I believe it would be very safe to say that the Ninth Circuit Court is made up predominantly of judges who are sympathetic to radical agendas with very few if any of them representing the hardworking miners and ranchers who have for generations made up the backbone of the Western economy. Of the 26 active judges on the Ninth Circuit Court, 17 were appointed by Democrat presidents. Only 9 judges are Republican appointees. A remarkable 14 of the 26 judges--54 percent of the court--were appointed by President Clinton. In 2000 alone--a presidential election year-- President Clinton appointed four judges to the court. The Ninth Circuit has established a pattern of issuing the most activist decisions in the country. In one day earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed three decisions from the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court ended its 2003-2004 term having reversed the Ninth Circuit in 81 percent of the cases appealed from it. Needless to say, that's not a good record. That means, in every five cases that were appealed, the Supreme Court ruled that these judges got it wrong 4 out of every 5 cases. Worse still, this was an improvement over their embarrassingly high reversal rate over the past several years--86.5 percent since 1998. This trend is likely to continue unless we help correct the situation by confirming good, honest judges who respect the Constitution and Federal law. Judges who will bring some balance to the Ninth Circuit equation. Why do they call Bill a radical? If you examine his record, you will see that he represents and understands those under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court--the average person in the West who relies more on common sense than complicated legal arguments to determine right from wrong. That ought to erase that label. But, for some reason, it doesn't. Could the placing of this label on this good, fair, honest, and decent individual be another ploy at politicizing this nomination for the sake of obstruction? Most of the Judges on the Ninth Circuit Court come from the Circuit's most populated States, such as California. The other States that make up the Ninth Circuit, such as the State of Idaho, are allowed only one judge. Right now Idaho's seat is vacant. Will Idaho only be allowed representation on the court when it has a nominee from California? We begin every session here in the Senate with the Pledge of Allegiance. We join together to say those special words. As we do, I know that my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, say those words with a firm heartfelt commitment to this country and that they mean every word of pledging their allegiance to the flag and to this Nation. But I have to wonder if they haven't forgotten the meaning of all the words in the pledge when they take a hardline stance like this against a fully qualified nominee. The last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' mean that we do not preserve justice or liberty for a few people, or for most of the people, and leave a few, or even an individual, behind. It means we have justice for all, for everyone, and that we don't make exceptions because they come from a State that doesn't have as many people as California, or may not be as liberal as California. In fact, this is one of the situations that the courts were created to protect--the rights of each individual. I think it is a little ironic that there are those here in the Senate that would be willing to withhold justice and rights from some people, in this case the average, hardworking people who make up the population within the Ninth Circuit just because those individuals don't share their political philosophy. I hope we will do the right thing by Bill Myers. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment that would place the regulation of tobacco products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. The question is not whether the Federal Government should regulate tobacco products. It should and it does already, through a variety of agencies. The regulations are based on a variety of laws that Congress has passed over the past few decades. We have Federal laws to require health warnings on all packaging and in all print and outdoor advertisements. We have prohibited the advertisement of tobacco products on television and radio. We require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to us every 3 years on research findings about tobacco and addiction. We also require States to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to anyone under age 18. States that do not comply with this requirement risk the loss of Federal block grant funding. The question again is not whether Federal regulation of tobacco products is appropriate. It is whether the FDA should be responsible for a broad new regulatory scheme that would cover everything from the manufacture of smokeless tobacco to the sale of cigarettes at the corner store. At a time when the FDA's challenges have never been greater or more significant, the last thing we need is to give the FDA a huge task that will draw attention and focus away from its already considerable responsibilities. The FDA is already overworked and underfunded. We ask the FDA to be responsible for so many things: ensuring that new drugs and medical devices are safe and effective, safeguarding the Nation's blood supply, regulating the manufacture and distribution of food additives and drugs that will be given to animals, and increasing the security of our food supply. Consumer and industry groups regularly complain that the FDA's budget is inadequate and its mandate is too broad to enable the agency to manage its current workload. Yet here we are, proposing to give the FDA another huge responsibility, for which it will have to create another huge bureaucracy within its already sprawling structure. Now, more than ever, our families and children need to know that the FDA can meet its current obligations. I recognize that a number of important voices in the public health community are calling for FDA regulation of tobacco products, but I fail to understand why regulation by this particular agency is so critical. Those who support FDA regulation of tobacco say that they are not interested in banning cigarettes or other tobacco products. This makes no sense to me. With everything we know about the dangers of tobacco use, how would the FDA arrive at any other conclusion but to ban tobacco products? One of the purposes of the bill would ``vest the FDA with the authority to regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products.'' Well, we know that nicotine is an addictive drug and by itself may cause health problems. And we also know that tar and other chemicals in tobacco products are very harmful to our health. How would the FDA remain true to its mission without requiring manufacturers of tobacco products to reduce the level of nicotine to zero? Reducing the level of the addictive drug in tobacco products would effectively result in a ban of tobacco products--after all, how would a smoker get their ``nicotine high'' from a nicotine-free product? Having said that, I believe an outright ban on tobacco products is impractical. If I thought that banning cigarettes would stop people from smoking, I would say let's pass a law and make it so. Banning cigarettes will not stop people from smoking, though, just like prohibition failed to stop people from drinking. So if we are not going to ban tobacco products, then what is the point of FDA regulation of tobacco? We already have the necessary tools to address the other concerns that some use to justify giving the FDA this new power. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to prevent false or misleading claims for consumer products, and Congress has given the FTC the explicit authority to oversee the labeling and advertising of tobacco products. For health or safety claims in advertising, the FTC generally requires a high level of substantiation, including competent and reliable scientific evidence. The record shows that the FTC has not hesitated to exercise its enforcement authority to prevent or correct false or misleading tobacco product advertising, including express or implied claims about exposure and other health-related issues. So, if a cigarette manufacturer were to promote a ``reduced-risk'' product with misleading advertising or unsubstantiated claims, I am confident that the FTC would take decisive action against them. In fact, researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health are already studying ``reduced-risk'' products with a skeptical eye, providing the type of independent scientific review that goes well beyond anything the FDA customarily produces on its own. This suggests to me that manufacturers of ``reduced-risk'' products are not going to be able to count on the Government's silence in response to any advertising claims they may make. I would rather have the FTC continue its vigorous enforcement against dangerous or deceptive advertising claims rather than set up a regulatory scenario under which the FDA puts its ``stamp of approval'' on a reduced-risk cigarette. Most Americans see the FDA as the protector of the public health, yet everyone agrees that smoking kills, and that there is no such thing as a ``safe'' cigarette. The FDA would send a mixed and confusing message if it were suddenly to begin approving tobacco products that would still kill the user, just at a slower pace. Another argument for FDA regulation of tobacco products is that we need to involve the FDA if we are going to crack down on illegal sales of tobacco products to children. Right now, this job belongs to State and local governments, and I believe it should stay that way. Every State has laws against selling tobacco to people under the age of 18, so the issue is enforcing these laws, not creating new ones. And these current laws are working. The number of kids who have purchased tobacco in retail stores has dropped by 50 percent since the implementation of the Federal Synar amendment in the late 1990s. Working together with States, communities and retailers, we already are making great strides in preventing kids from purchasing tobacco. Our current efforts are working, so it makes no sense to change horses in mid-stream and bring the FDA into every convenience store across America. To reduce underage access to tobacco, we ought to build upon the successes of the Synar amendment. This Congress is due to reauthorize the agency that oversees the implementation of the Synar amendment. This gives us the perfect opportunity to consider how the Synar amendment is working and what we could do to make it even more effective. Combining greater education with tougher enforcement is the answer to tobacco prevention. The States that take the most comprehensive approaches to tobacco prevention, particularly those that work closely with local programs and coalitions, have achieved some of the best records, in preventing the initiation of tobacco use by kids. We should hold these States out as models for others, instead of inserting a new Federal bureaucracy into the equation. Our Federal efforts should support our communities by providing tools and information for adults on the dangers of tobacco use, teaching our kids about these dangers so that they don't start using tobacco, and on enforcing the laws we already have on the books. But our local communities and states should take the lead. Stopping kids from smoking will require continuing collaboration between State governments, local governments, community organizations, academic institutions, and Federal agencies like the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services. And this partnership is working. It has successfully reduced the prevalence of smoking in the United States by 22 percent from 1990 to 2002. It also has reduced the prevalence of smoking by high schoolers by 22 percent from 1997 to 2001. These numbers show that we are making progress. Let's not mess with success. Let's stick with what is working. I am no fan of tobacco, but I am going to vote against giving a huge new responsibility to the already overburdened FDA. Giving tobacco regulation to the FDA will not stop adults from smoking, and I doubt whether the FDA would to any better at keeping cigarettes out of the hands of kids than our States and communities are doing. I reject the notion that the way to show you're ``for kids'' and ``against big tobacco'' is by voting for the creation of a new and unnecessary bureaucracy that would operate under a mandate that is simultaneously too broad and too vague. This vote is not a choice between kids and big tobacco. This vote is about the best way for the Federal Government to continue regulating tobacco products. I will oppose this amendment because I believe the best role for the Federal Government in tobacco prevention is to focus on education and enforcement. We already have the laws and regulations in place. Let's use them to the fullest before we create new ones.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about patient safety. There is bipartisan legislation pending in the Senate that is absolutely critical to reducing healthcare errors and increasing healthcare quality. It is S. 720, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported this bill to the floor in November of last year. It was approved in the committee by a unanimous voice vote, and it is past time for the Senate to vote on and pass this important legislation. This patient safety legislation is an important step toward building a culture of safety and quality in health care. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act would create a framework through which hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers can work to improve health care quality in a protected legal environment. The bill would grant privilege and confidentiality protections to health care providers to allow them to report health care errors and ``near misses'' to patient safety organizations. The bill also would allow these patient safety organizations to collect and analyze the data confidentially. After analyzing the data, patient safety organizations would report on trends in healthcare errors and offer guidance to providers on how to eliminate or minimize these errors. Some of this takes place today, but much more information could be collected and analyzed if providers felt confident that reporting these errors did not increase the likelihood that they or their colleagues would be sued for honest mistakes. This legislation would not permit anyone to hide information about a medical mistake. Under the bill, lawyers could still access medical records and other information that would normally be discoverable in a legal proceeding. However, the bill would ensure that the analysis of that information by patient safety organizations would take place on a separate track in a protected legal environment. Healthcare providers will be much more likely to share information about honest mistakes and how to prevent them if they have some assurance that the analysis of their information won't result in a tidy package of information that a personal injury lawyer could use against them in court. Errors in medical treatment take place far too often today. Unfortunately, providers live in fear of our unpredictable and unfair medical litigation system, and this legal fear inhibits efforts to address the root causes of health care errors. Without appropriate protections for the collection and analysis of patient safety data, providers are unwilling to report mistakes and errors, which is one of the reasons that health care quality today is not what it could be. Litigation does nothing to improve quality or safety. The constant threat of litigation instead stifles honest analysis of why health errors happen. This is just one more reason why we need wholesale reform of our medical litigation system. We need to foster alternatives that restore trust between patients and providers and result in fair and reliable outcomes for both parties. We need to scrap the current system, not just cap it. But until we do so, we should take whatever steps we can to create an environment that protects the collection and analysis of patient safety data so that providers can learn from their mistakes and prevent them from happening in the future. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act is one of these steps. Yesterday, our committee chairman, Senator Gregg, asked for unanimous consent that we move to consideration of this legislation on the Senate floor. This is the third time he has done so. Each time, he has been blocked by our colleagues in the minority, even though the committee of jurisdiction was unanimous in its support for the bill. My colleagues in the minority keep talking about problems with healthcare quality--just like they keep talking about the loss of American jobs. However, talk is cheap when their actions don't match up to their words. If they are really so concerned about improving healthcare in our Nation, why would they object to a bill that would reduce errors and improve patient safety, particularly a bipartisan bill with unanimous committee support? If they are really so concerned about American workers and jobs, why won't they let a bill improving the Nation's job-training system go to conference? This is another example of what is happening--or not happening here in the Senate. We have a bill--a bipartisan bill--that will help workers get back to work or find better jobs. This bill will equip our workforce with the skills necessary for America to compete--and succeed--in the global economy. It reauthorizes and improves the Nation's job training and employment system created under the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act provides job training and employment services to more than 900,000 unemployed workers each year. Just like the patient safety legislation, this bipartisan bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Senate floor by unanimous consent last November. That is as bipartisan as you can possibly get. Where is the bill now? We can't get a conference committee appointed to resolve differences with the House. If we really want to take care of jobs and workers in this country, we should appoint conferees for the Workforce Investment Act legislation. I can only conclude that my Colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more concerned with election year politics than helping American workers, or improving patient safety. There are differences between Republicans and Democrats on most of the big issues facing our Nation. If my colleagues in the minority want to bottle up legislation with which they disagree, that is their prerogative. But that is not what I am talking about. What we have here are a few members of the minority party holding up bipartisan bills that receive unanimous approval in committee, and holding up conferences on bills that receive unanimous support on the Senate floor. The only logical conclusion I can make is that these roadblocks are based on politics, not policy, and that is a shame. Right now, the Senate floor reminds me of the airspace above a busy airport. We have got a number of bipartisan bills lined up for their final approach, but our colleagues in the minority are holding these bills up and won't allow them to land. The tactics of my colleagues in the minority give new meaning to the term ``holding pattern.'' It is time for our Democrat colleagues to break this holding pattern so that we can pass these bipartisan bills like the Patient Safety Act and the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. These are not only bipartisan bills, but they received unanimous committee support. Let us set election politics aside for a moment. These are bipartisan bills, so no one party can claim credit for their passage. The Patient Safety Act was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, who is the lone independent in the Senate. So this bill is more than bipartisan. My distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, suggested yesterday that we should just approve the House-passed patient safety bill. He suggested that he should just take up the House bill, rather than pass the Senate bill, because the Members of the House are the true experts on complex legislation like this. I wonder if my colleague's opinion would be the same on medical liability reform. After all, the expert legislators in the House have sent us some excellent legislation to reform our medical litigation system. Perhaps we should stop working on this in the Senate and just approve the House-passed bill. Or perhaps we could take up the House-passed bill on the Workforce Investment Act. I know my Democrat colleagues with whom I have worked to craft a Senate version are confident that our version is the superior one, but if Senator Reid believes that the Members of the House are superior legislators, perhaps he could convince my Democrat coauthors that we ought to just take up the House bill and pass it. Or, as I have suggested, why don't we just agree to go to conference with the House and come up with the best possible bill we can, one that reflects the expertise of Members of both the Senate and the House? I hope our colleagues in the minority will agree to take 2 hours of their time to debate and vote on the bipartisan Patient Safety Act. Two hours is not a lot of time, and it is the least we can do on such an important piece of legislation. We have spent hours upon hours working on this bill in committee and crafting a bill that received unanimous bipartisan support. Let us spend 2 more hours on the Patient Safety Act so that we improve the quality and safety of healthcare in America.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when the Supreme Court in Massachusetts issued its ruling on marriage it did what no court ought to do. It set itself apart from and above the State and Federal legislatures, and went so far as to order the Massachusetts Legislature to produce a remedy in a time period it knew was unworkable and unfair. Even if the legislature is able to draft a change in the law that is acceptable to the court it will be impossible to bring the issue before the voters to obtain their consent and approval of the legislature's intrusion on the important tradition of marriage. Regardless of what we may believe about the institution of marriage, the process of amending the Constitution, or the rights of same-sex couples to marry, there is no question that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended when they originally drafted the Constitution and established the principles of separation of powers and the right of the governed to have a voice in the laws that are written to govern them. The amendment we have before us is an attempt to remedy that situation and provide guidance and direction from the people of the States to the courts on this matter. As we begin our consideration of this issue, we cannot help but frame the argument in terms of our own experience of marriage and our memories of the marriage of our own mother and father. I was fortunate to have a pair of remarkable parents who worked hard and did everything they could to raise their family with a strong awareness of the principles and values of the time. One of those principles was undoubtedly the bonds that tied them together as man and wife. I know I am not the only one with such memories of growing up, or later, repeating much of the same modeling when we had families of our own. Now, as a grandfather, I am watching the traditions repeat themselves as my son and his wife raise the next generation of our family. Simply put, that is what this legislation means to me--providing the generations to come with the same kind of advantages I had in my own life. It is not about denying rights to any group--it is about ensuring marriage, and its importance in our society continues to be encouraged and promoted. As I have listened to the debate, I have heard it said that this is an issue that the States, not Congress, ought to be deciding. I could not agree more that the States need to be heard on this issue. That is why we are pursuing the remedy of a constitutional amendment in this matter. Even if we were to pass this legislation, however, it would still require the consent of three-fourths of the States. In other words, the debate we begin here will be finished by the States. That way we will ensure that such a radical departure from our traditions and the norm of the institution of marriage will not be changed by the ruling of a court, but by the will of the people who will make their will known through their State legislatures. One argument that has been raised in opposition to the legislation before us has to do with the rights of same-sex unions as defined by those States that have established civil unions. This bill will do nothing to change or alter that process. The States can continue to establish these programs as determined by the will of the people of the States that produce them. This line of reasoning tries to obscure the point that a marriage is quite different from a civil union. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a partnership aimed at producing children and nurturing their growth and development. It is not about social acceptance, or about economic benefits, or an exercise in civil rights, as some would try to lead us to believe. A civil union, on the other hand, is a legal agreement that establishes a partnership between two people of the same sex to ensure their rights as ``partners'' are preserved in the eyes of the law. A civil union is concerned with matters like the right to an inheritance, retirement, death benefits, health insurance and the like. Marriage is concerned with matters involving the birth and raising of children. That is the main difference between the two. Simply put, life comes from the marriage of a man and a woman. No life can come from a civil union. Society clearly has an interest in promoting and encouraging marriage and the life it produces because it is the cornerstone upon which all our institutions are based. The family is also the main building block that helps form the very structure of our society. If all politics is local, you cannot get any more local than protecting and preserving the institution of marriage and the family unit it creates. The family is the basic unit from which neighborhoods are developed and strong communities are created. That is why society must continue to promote marriage and to afford it all the protections it can. Again, marriage is more than just a bond between a man and a woman, it is the basis from which life is created and children become a part of our world. I have often heard it said that if we do not do a good job of raising our children, nothing else we accomplish during our lives will matter very much. Studies have shown that a child is better prepared for life if that child is raised in a loving, caring environment, with a father and a mother. The bonds that are formed, and the lessons learned about life from mom and dad help a child to understand his or her role in the world. It also helps a child begin to develop relationships with members of the opposite sex. A mother and father serve as role models for a child that help children understand their own role in the world as it shapes their relationships with their peers as they grow up and become adults. Some may try to respond to those points by promoting the cause of same-sex parents. That argument tries to change the subject because that is not what this legislation is about. It is about protecting the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us for more generations than any of us could count. If we abandon marriage, we abandon the family. And when we convert marriage into a civil right for the sole purpose of indulging a perceived ``protected sphere of individual sexual autonomy,'' as some courts have tried to do, we abandon hope, not just for ourselves, but especially for future generations. If we lose our connection across the generations that have held marriage dear for so long and, as a result, the hearts of fathers and mothers are no longer turned to their children, and the hearts of children are no longer turned to their fathers and mothers, we will have suffered a great and terrible loss, indeed. It was just over 10 months ago that I came to the Senate floor to announce the birth of my latest hope for the future, my grandson Trey. I shared my dream of his future and welcomed him into this world of promise and hope and love. A number of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, came to me after that speech and shared with me their own hopes for the future as seen in the pictures of their grandchildren. My conclusion from those conversations is that all moms and dads, grampas and grammas know what it means to have that connection--the ties that bind each generation of each family together. From where did that connection come? It was taught to us as we learned about families from our own parents and grandparents who took us under their wing and taught us what it means to be a part of a family. Simply put, they led the best way, by example, and what they taught us continues to guide us and direct us today. As I look back on those days I can see that I was their hope for the future, and they were willing to sacrifice today so that I might have a better tomorrow. It would be a tragedy for the courts to take that same opportunity away from me and my grandchildren. The legislation we are considering today has one goal in mind--to protect the definition of marriage as it was developed and handed down to us from generation to generation. The enactment of this amendment will ensure that we pass that gift on to our children and our children's children, just as we received it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join with my friend and colleague from the State of Colorado to introduce the Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 to bring the image of the American bison back to the 5-cent coin. The American bison is one of the most powerful symbols of the American West. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered many bison on their western expedition. Native Americans in the Great Plains States have held the American bison as one of the most sacred animals, as it represents a spiritual being supplying everything necessary to survive. The bison also is an enduring symbol of the growth of the United States westward. The symbol of the bison is so powerful that the State of Wyoming has put its image on the State flag and the U.S. Department of the Interior uses the bison image on its official seal. Many don't realize how close we came to losing this important animal. At one time, the American bison population was conservatively estimated at 60,000,000 strong. In the early 1900's, the worldwide bison population fell below 1000 and was virtually extinct. At that time, less than 100 free-range bison existed and there remained only 29 bison under Federal Government control, 21 in Yellowstone National Park and eight in the National Zoo in Washington, DC. However, the restoration of the bison herds is one of the most shining examples of conservation efforts of our Nation's history. From the dwindling number of bison in the early 1900's, it is anticipated that the North American bison herd will surpass half of a million in the next year. In addition, the bison herd of 21 in Yellowstone National Park has now grown to more than 4,000 bison. It is the largest free-range bison herd in the United States. The conservation effort of the bison began in the early 1900's. At that time, the American Bison Society was formed with President Teddy Roosevelt as its honorary president. Soon, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary in 2008 of the signing into law by President Roosevelt of the creation of the National Bison Range. While Federal efforts to restore the bison have been beyond our expectations, a very large part of the successful restoration of the bison herd is due to the private sector. Today, bison can be found in all 50 States, including Hawaii. Many anticipate that the bison population may pass 1 million by the end of the decade. Today, the bison ranching sector has become a viable business for many small- and medium-sized ranchers. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture census, Wyoming ranches raised 12,580 bison for agricultural purposes during 2002. Restoring the bison to our coinage is a fitting tribute, especially during this July, which is National Bison Month. A fitting honor for the American bison would be to restore the image on the back of the nickel. This not only would honor the restoration of the bison herd but it would be a symbol of the West. It is my hope that the millions of bison nickels would inspire school children to recognize the importance of our western heritage, the importance of the bison in Native American culture, and the importance of the public/ private efforts to restore the American bison. While our Nation's symbol is the bald eagle, there is little doubt that the symbol of the west is the American bison. The Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 would restore the American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003 to its original three-year time frame. Due to the late passage of this law, the U.S. Mint was unable to mint newly designed nickels for 2003. In addition, our bill would require that one of the new images on the reverse of the nickel be of an American bison. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the restoration of the American bison herd than to restore the image of the bison on the back of the nickel. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 3 minutes for a total of 5 minutes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join with my friend and colleague from the State of Colorado to introduce the Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 to bring the image of the American bison back to the 5-cent coin. The American bison is one of the most powerful symbols of the American West. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered many bison on their western expedition. Native Americans in the Great Plains States have held the American bison as one of the most sacred animals, as it represents a spiritual being supplying everything necessary to survive. The bison also is an enduring symbol of the growth of the United States westward. The symbol of the bison is so powerful that the State of Wyoming has put its image on the State flag and the U.S. Department of the Interior uses the bison image on its official seal. Many don't realize how close we came to losing this important animal. At one time, the American bison population was conservatively estimated at 60,000,000 strong. In the early 1900's, the worldwide bison population fell below 1000 and was virtually extinct. At that time, less than 100 free-range bison existed and there remained only 29 bison under Federal Government control, 21 in Yellowstone National Park and eight in the National Zoo in Washington, DC. However, the restoration of the bison herds is one of the most shining examples of conservation efforts of our Nation's history. From the dwindling number of bison in the early 1900's, it is anticipated that the North American bison herd will surpass half of a million in the next year. In addition, the bison herd of 21 in Yellowstone National Park has now grown to more than 4,000 bison. It is the largest free-range bison herd in the United States. The conservation effort of the bison began in the early 1900's. At that time, the American Bison Society was formed with President Teddy Roosevelt as its honorary president. Soon, we will be celebrating the centennial anniversary in 2008 of the signing into law by President Roosevelt of the creation of the National Bison Range. While Federal efforts to restore the bison have been beyond our expectations, a very large part of the successful restoration of the bison herd is due to the private sector. Today, bison can be found in all 50 States, including Hawaii. Many anticipate that the bison population may pass 1 million by the end of the decade. Today, the bison ranching sector has become a viable business for many small- and medium-sized ranchers. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture census, Wyoming ranches raised 12,580 bison for agricultural purposes during 2002. Restoring the bison to our coinage is a fitting tribute, especially during this July, which is National Bison Month. A fitting honor for the American bison would be to restore the image on the back of the nickel. This not only would honor the restoration of the bison herd but it would be a symbol of the West. It is my hope that the millions of bison nickels would inspire school children to recognize the importance of our western heritage, the importance of the bison in Native American culture, and the importance of the public/ private efforts to restore the American bison. While our Nation's symbol is the bald eagle, there is little doubt that the symbol of the west is the American bison. The Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 would restore the American 5-Cent Coin Design Continuity Act of 2003 to its original three-year time frame. Due to the late passage of this law, the U.S. Mint was unable to mint newly designed nickels for 2003. In addition, our bill would require that one of the new images on the reverse of the nickel be of an American bison. I can think of no more fitting tribute to the restoration of the American bison herd than to restore the image of the bison on the back of the nickel. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act, Amendment 3183, proposed by my colleague from Oregon. I have always believed that we should leave as many decisions as possible to the States to decide. Only on rare occasions, and with great and good cause should the Federal Government try to step in and legislate what the States should do. When we try to legislate ``one size fits all'' solutions to the problems facing the States more often than not we create more problems than we solve. Before we act on this amendment, we should ask ourselves if this new law that we would create would reduce crime. After all, that should be our primary reason for passing new criminal laws. In this case, although I know it is a well meaning effort to address a serious problem, it won't prevent crime, it will only make a statement about it. That's one of the problems with a Federal hate crime bill. If it passes, we may think we have taken care of the problem. Unfortunately, although it may make us feel good, a law like this will do little to slow down or stop the cycle of violence in our cities and towns. Another problem with the hate crime bill is its definition of hate crimes. All of the predicate offenses that would qualify as hate crimes are already illegal and they are already being prosecuted under traditional categories of crimes. In other words, the States are already aware of the problem and using existing law to address it. In those cases where additional legislation is needed, the States are taking the lead and deciding the matter for themselves. They don't need or want us to step in and tell them what they should do. In addition, if we pass this amendment Federal agents and prosecutors will be put in a position in which they will be second guessing the efforts of local officials and substituting their own judgment or political motivations for the judgment of local law enforcement personnel who are dealing with the problem of hate crimes at the scene where they are committed. The Smith amendment could essentially federalize most crimes. Such an explosion in Federal jurisdiction would require a tremendous expansion in the size and scope of Federal law enforcement and Federal prosecutors at a time when the States have the capability of prosecuting these crimes themselves--and they are doing it. Federal prosecutors already have the tools at their disposal to address issues like hate crimes--they just have to make better use of them. All crimes are in some way hate crimes. By enacting hate crime legislation we ironically serve the principle of inequality that this type of legislation seeks to fight against. Violent crimes are horrific and should be punished equally, regardless of the particular ``bias'' of the perpetrator. A vicious murder should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law--no matter who the victim is. The value of an individual's life should not depend on their heritage, ethnicity or lifestyle. If life truly is a sacred gift we should treat every life with the same dignity and respect we all deserve. To try to read someone's mind, or guess what their real motivation was for committing a crime will never be possible. Crimes aren't thoughts, they're actions, and actions which are crimes need to be addressed as soon as they are committed. To try to gauge the seriousness of a crime based on someone's thoughts is to put an additional burden on law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, not to mention the judge and jury who will have to work on and ultimately decide the case. Clearly, putting a greater value on some lives inherently devalues others, and it goes against a basic principle of our legal foundation which is that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Justice is swifter when the accused are tried on the basis of what they did without adding some speculation on the thoughts they might have had while committing the crime. We have State and Federal laws to punish murder, assault, battery, and a long list of other crimes. If these laws are not strong enough then we should make them stronger. We should also be making our feelings known to our neighbors, to our children, in our papers and through our broadcast media that hatred in any form is wrong. We should not, however, try to make statements with laws that weaken State authority or the rights granted to individuals in the Constitution. Our society must continue to participate in a dialogue on the issues of racism, bigotry, and hate. We must pray for direction and guidance and work together to ensure that we avoid the kind of hate that may give rise to such crimes in the first place. Hatred in any form is destructive to the very foundation upon which our society is built. If we are to truly address the problem of hate crimes, we must come together as one, our families, our spiritual and church leaders, our local and community leaders, and the citizens of our communities to foster and reinforce in our children and all our citizens the importance of treating each other as we would wish to be treated. It is such a simple lesson--it is never permissible to hurt another. Somehow, some of our children never learned it. Recent and past events make it clear that it is a lesson about which every child must be taught, and every adult constantly reminded.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up an amendment numbered 3295.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation on this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase 10 aircraft that were designed and built to fight fires. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management need to develop a new fleet of aircraft for aerial firefighting in order to free up current military aircraft to fly military missions. My amendment takes the first step to create a new fleet of aircraft specifically designed for aerial firefighting. Once the new fleet is in place all dedicated military aircraft will be freed up and allowed to be dedicated, once again, for military missions. On May 10, 2004, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior terminated the contract for 33 large airtankers used for aerial fire fighting because of ``concerns over the airworthiness of the aircraft and public safety.'' The large, fixed-wing airtankers were used in wildland firefighting primarily for initial attack and structure protection support. The old fleet was made up of aging, former military aircraft that were purchased at bargain basement prices from the surplus military market. They were the worst of the worst and required extensive repairs and refurbishing before they were ready for aerial firefighting. The USFS has planned to replace the 33 air tankers with 8 military C130s that will be dedicated during the fire session to fly support for domestic fire fighting missions. These planes, therefore, will not be available to support necessary military missions. The first step in relieving these planes from domestic duty, and making them available for military utilization, is to find a reasonable replacement that is safe and specifically designed for aerial fire fighting. One example of the kind of aircraft that could be purchased is the Be-200 that would be serviced by a company in my home State of Wyoming. It was specifically designed to operate as an air tanker and can deliver up to 6,000 gallons of water or other fire suppressants. It is an amphibious plane that can scoop up the water on the fly. It can mix the water with slurry in regulated amounts while in the air so it will not be required to fill up at a slurry base after every run. And, because the water tanks were designed to fit under the cabin floor, it can also carry up to 60 firefighters and their gear as a transport plane while it is functioning as a firefighting tanker. Our pilots put their lives on the lines to save our property and to save other lives. We owe it to them to have a modern fleet where the risks they face are significantly diminished. We also owe it to our military to free up our military aircraft for military missions. Right now there are 8 C-130 transport aircraft that cannot be used to fly support missions in the Middle East because they have to be on hand to fight fires in the West. We have options available to free those aircraft up and we should be developing those options as quickly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this past weekend, the news quickly made its way across the country and around the world. Ronald Reagan, our 40th President, had died. For many of us, we received the news with a mixture of sadness together with a sense of relief that his long battle with illness was now over and he had now found peace at the end of his life. I first met Ronald Reagan when I was president of the Wyoming Jaycees at the national convention which was held in California, and he was the Governor. I next met the President when I was mayor of Gillette, WY, and the National League of Cities held its national meeting and the President flew to California and addressed it. Now the greatest thinkers and writers will take up their pens in an attempt to determine his place in history and his significance as one of our greatest Presidents. For those of us who observed his service as our President and admired his leadership, those questions had been long since answered. For us, his place in history was long ago determined by his place in our hearts. Many of those who will examine his life in detail will tell a story about a man who was born without the great privileges and trappings you might expect of such a successful life. That is true, but there is so much more to the story. Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois, the son of a traveling shoe salesman. Growing up he was strongly influenced by his mother who taught him how to read at an early age. She urged him to read good books that would encourage him to dream and set goals in his life. She knew that he could be anything he wanted to be if he was willing to work hard and expect more of himself than anyone else had any reason to expect. That, more than anything else, really determined his character and ultimately mapped his destiny. His natural confidence and determination began to show itself during his school years and again, later, when he began his career as an actor. He was a natural leader and he took a leadership role at virtually every stage of his life. In his college days he served as student body president. In his acting days he served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. In between he worked hard and built a career as a successful actor in film and on television. If that had been all he had done, it would have been a remarkable life. He would have earned the rags to riches label and inspired others to follow his path just by his success in Hollywood and on television. That would have been enough for just about everyone. It was not, however, enough for Ronald Reagan. With his beloved wife, Nancy, by his side, Ronald Reagan began to pursue his dream. He wanted to make a greater impact on the world than he could by being a television and movie star, so he began to take a more active role in politics. He discovered he had a talent for that, too. After a great deal of thought and deliberation, he decided to put his vision for America to the test. He took his case to the people and began a run for Governor of California. People thought it was an impossible dream and he could never win a State like California. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong. He put together a coalition of both Republican and Democratic voters and, when all the votes were counted, he had made it happen and he was elected Governor by almost a million votes. Reagan then set his sights on the Presidency of the United States and, after a narrow loss to Gerald Ford, he spent the next few years traveling around the country, sharing his dream for a better United States with the people who came to hear him speak. Many doubted he could do it, but once again, he found the support he needed to win the Republican nomination. The contest for the Presidency put him up against an incumbent who talked about the serious problems facing the Nation. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, spoke with passionate certainty that working together the Nation could overcome them. When the votes were counted, Ronald Reagan had won the presidency in a landslide. As President, Ronald Reagan proved himself to be a man of principle, someone who said what he believed and believed what he said. He had excellent communication skills, and his speeches on television were extremely effective. When he took the oath of the office as our 40th President, he took over the reins of a country that had great problems. He had often referred to our economic woes as the ``misery index.'' There was high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment. Perhaps worst of all, the Nation seemed to have lost its confidence in its ability to dare to do great things--and succeed. There was a lot of doubt and cynicism that any one individual could do much to change things and re-energize the Nation. Again, Ronald Reagan proved the doubters wrong. As President, his spirit of optimism, patriotism and personal pride in his country proved to be infectious. Before long, there was a new spirit in the United States, a renewed sense of pride and excitement about our Flag and our Nation that hadn't been around for a while. Ronald Reagan was just what we needed. He inspired a generation to look toward the future with hope and a renewed commitment to the principles upon which our Nation was founded. It is still alive today. It is his legacy that he left with us, his gift to the younger generations of the Nation. During his two terms in the White House, Ronald Reagan spoke the truth, regardless of the sensitivities of those who might not want to hear it. It was over the objections of much of his staff that he challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall'' when he was in Berlin. It was against the advice of much of his staff to refer to the Soviet Union as an ``evil empire.'' For Ronald Reagan, it was simple. If it was the truth, it must be said. For him, there was good guys and bad guys in the world. If the good guys worked hard and were determined to succeed, they won. In Ronald Reagan's world, we were the good guys. And, during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, more often then not, we won. For historians and the history books, Ronald Reagan will be remembered as the President who brought a successful end to the cold war; had a great deal to do with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and the destruction of the Berlin Wall; and, dramatically turned the Nation's economy around. For those of us who observed his style as our President, he will also be remembered for his spirit, and his attitude of patriotic optimism, which rejuvenated the Nation when our spirit was low. He was a great leader and a great American. His words and his actions will long be remembered. Ronald Reagan dared to do the impossible, not because it was easy but because it had to be done. The challenges he encountered in his life brought out the best in him, and the challenges we faced as a Nation under him brought out the best in all of us. His is a legacy that we will always cherish. We will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have never supported a bill that would allow for the importation of prescription drugs--until today. I have decided to cosponsor Senator Gregg's bill to permit the carefully regulated importation of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The bill also would regulate the dispensing of medications by Internet pharmacies and strengthen the laws and regulations that protect Americans from the dangers of counterfeit drugs. I have long opposed drug importation on the grounds that current laws, regulations, and practices are insufficient to allow for the safe opening of our currently closed drug distribution system. I have said that I could not support any plan to legalize drug importation that does not ensure that the drugs that are imported are safe, effective, and will not compromise the integrity of our Nation's prescription drug supply or our world-leading pharmaceutical research. With that in mind, Senator Gregg's bill is the first piece of legislation I have seen that would craft an importation system with the appropriate safeguards and limitations necessary to protect the public health. Senator Gregg's bill would allow importation of FDA-approved drugs manufactured in FDA-inspected facilities only. His bill would permit the importation of drugs from Canada only, with the possibility that the FDA could approve importation from other countries in the future. His bill would also provide additional tools and resources for the FDA to use to protect American citizens from tainted or counterfeit drugs, and from scam artists selling medications on the Internet. Senator Gregg has introduced a strong bill that addresses my concerns about the safety of drug importation and Internet pharmacies, and it's the only bill I've yet seen that I could support. My main outstanding concern is that Senator Gregg's bill does not address the liability that sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of prescription drugs may face even under a regulated system of drug importation. Our jurisdiction over foreign companies or individuals in the chain of drug distribution is limited at best. Irresponsible actions on their part could put responsible American companies and individuals at risk of substantial monetary liability. Without liability protection, American companies and individuals may choose not to participate in drug importation, which would defeat the purpose of enacting this legislation in the first place. As this legislation moves in the Senate, I look forward to working with Senator Gregg, the other cosponsors of his bill, and other interested Members to address these concerns through sensible liability protections for sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of prescription drugs. I want to be clear on an important point: importing prescription drugs from other countries will not solve the problem of rising drug prices. Our market for prescription drugs is so large that we can not import enough lower-priced medications from other countries to make a significant impact on prices here. There are many other ways that Congress is helping Americans afford their prescription medications. Just yesterday, for instance, the new Medicare drug discount cards went into effect. The cards offer savings of 10 to 25 percent or more off the current retail prices seniors pay, and seniors with low incomes also qualify for a $1,200 credit over the next 18 months to help pay for prescriptions. Nevertheless, millions of Americans are still buying prescription drugs in Canada and other countries, or purchasing drugs from Internet pharmacies that operate outside the United States. Despite the fact that importing prescription drugs is against the law today, these Americans are taking their lives in their hands by going outside our closed drug distribution system and obtaining their prescription medicines from pharmacies and Internet sites that do not meet the high standards that we require domestically. Right now, the Federal Government and State governments are looking the other way, crossing our fingers and hoping that no one gets hurt. So I am cosponsoring Senator Gregg's bill to put a strong and enforceable system in place to protect Americans against the dangers inherent in importing drugs from other countries. I also intend to work with Senator Gregg to oppose any election-year political maneuvering that would weaken the critical safety components of his legislation as we consider the bill in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and on the Senate floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this past week has been a very memorable and inspirational and overdue time for all of us to come together as a nation and dedicate the World War II Memorial and recognize the efforts of our Nation's veterans in one of the fiercest wars in our Nation's history. As we did, many of us took a moment to remember the events of those days and how they affected us and, more importantly, how they affected the people in our lives who played an important part in that war effort. I had a special opportunity to remember my dad, Elmer Enzi, who served in the war, and my uncle Edward Curtis and my uncle Edmund Wally Enzi who played a part in that war. For many of us, those days are forever etched in our minds because they had an impact on us and our families and friends that will never be erased or forgotten. But it is nothing like the memory of those who actually participated. We have the opportunity to honor the Senators who are with us today in this great body who played a part in that war. We have mentioned them, their achievements. I want to refer to a piece that was on Channel 1, which is an educational channel that goes to the schools every morning. They have seen these World War II events being dedicated and the people who came to those events. Each time there is one of those events, the people who come are a little bit older. They found out the kids of this country were getting kind of a false impression of who fought the war, so they put out a special piece that would be dedicated to these great men who serve in our Chamber. The title of it was: ``The Kids Who Saved the World.'' They showed the people coming to the reunions, but then they shifted back to the pictures of these people as they served. It made a much greater identification for the kids across this country that the patriots, the ones who put their lives on the line, were not much older than the kids in school watching this Channel 1. I thank Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Fritz Hollings, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner for being those ``kids who saved the world'' and allowing us to be here in this forum today. For us, as Americans, our World War II story begins on December 7, 1941, a date President Franklin D. Roosevelt told us would live in infamy, as Japan suddenly and deliberately attacked the United States of America. The next day, the President reassured a fearful nation that the attack on Pearl Harbor would not stand and that all our resources would be brought to bear on ridding the world of the terrible menace that was threatening the future peace and security of the United States and Europe. In the years that followed, the United States put forth an effort to combat evil that had never been seen before. Sixteen million served in our Armed Forces and a united America gladly did everything that could possibly be done to support the war effort back home. The United States was fully committed to the cause at hand and no price was too great, no sacrifice too burdensome, and no hardship too severe, if it meant victory overseas. The World War II Memorial on the Mall commemorates the sacrifices of those 16 million veterans who served with pride and patriotism during World War II. It also honors and recognizes the millions more who supported the war cause back home. For without the efforts of our troops on the front lines, and the support and encouragement of family and friends back home, we would have never been successful. Thanks to all of them, we succeeded beyond our greatest expectations. This was truly a time when we knew there was no option but complete and total victory and we refused to consider any other option--regardless of the cost. When President Roosevelt made the call for recruits it was answered in unprecedented fashion. The 16 million Americans who reported for duty made it clear that they would pay any price to defend the freedoms and liberties of our own Nation. They also committed themselves to the liberation of Europe and the preservation of liberty there and in many other parts of the world. They were just average Americans from small towns and large, from small States and large, who were caught up in a cause greater than themselves. They soon showed themselves to be the greatest weapon ever known in the history of warfare--the American Armed Forces. They were sent to far away places with strange sounding names, as the song goes, and they probably never imagined there was anything special about them. Heroes? They probably never thought of themselves that way, but for those who read about their exploits, and for those of us who now live with the freedom that their blood, sweat and tears provided, we cannot think of them any other way. They were young men and women, called to attempt the impossible, knowing the odds were against them, and still they tried, because they believed in our country and the principles we hold dear as a nation. We have several World War II veterans serving with us here in the Senate, with several more serving in the House. Their commitment to country and duty which began so many years ago continues today in the Congress. Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Fritz Hollings, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator John Warner represent in a special way all of those who served with distinction and honor during those days. They are our link with the past, a past that has made our present possible. What they achieved, along with all those who served with them, is best seen in the words that have been posted on several Internet sites, attributed by some to Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC: It is the soldier, not the reporter Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us freedom of the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves under the flag and Whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protester to burn the flag. This is the legacy our veterans have left us and it reflects the debt we owe them all. They are--and they always have been--the force that guarantees our Bill of Rights. They are--and have been--the force that stands guard around the world, vigilant and watchful, while we sleep. They are the ones for whom love of country are not just words, they are a way of life. In the years to come, the Memorial on the Mall will serve as a constant reminder that freedom isn't free and that it comes at a great price. More than 400,000 American lives were lost in World War II and many more were wounded in battles all over the world. They will be remembered there. The memorial will also serve as a symbol of the heartfelt dedication and total commitment that was needed to put an end to the tyranny that threatened to ensnare the world around us. It was an effort that we pray will never have to be duplicated. We take great pride in our Nation's veterans because they are our greatest American heroes. They were as one, willing to sacrifice all their tomorrows to ensure we would live in freedom today. Our way of life is their legacy, their gift to us all. God bless them all, our Nation's heroes, our Nation's veterans. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gregg on attorney's fees. I am concerned about the effect frivolous lawsuits are having on the ability of our schools to provide services to special education students. Schools with limited resources, particularly small or rural schools, are especially vulnerable to the financial impact a frivolous complaint can have on scarce resources and limited funds. I believe an important part of the debate on this amendment should focus on the practical impact that frivolous complaints have on the provision of services to students with disabilities. When Federal funding was originally established for services to students with disabilities it was meant to be used for services, not for legal fees. I believe that is still the case. Unfortunately, some frivolous lawsuits against schools are having the effect of diverting funds from necessary services. There are documented cases where schools have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars battling frivolous complaints that were filed under IDEA. As my colleague from New Hampshire has pointed out, there is one instance of a school spending $154,000 over a 2-year period to address seven complaints from the same parent. Another school spent $195,000 on complaints from one parent. In Wyoming, $154,000 is more than some school district's entire special education administrative budget. It is very difficult to imagine successfully providing services to children with disabilities when faced with this kind of legal obligation to defend frivolous lawsuits. The piece of the puzzle that get overlooked is that school districts do not have unlimited funds. If a school district spends $154,000 on legal fees defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is $154,000 that does not get spent on educational purposes. I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that I think all complaints filed under IDEA are frivolous. We are talking about a very small minority of complaints, probably less than 1 percent. Still, even though the number of frivolous complaints may not be significant to the big picture, but the cost to schools can be very significant. A second major point I would like to make is that frivolous complaints undermine the effort of Congress to ``fully fund'' IDEA. The issue of ``full funding'' for IDEA has received a lot of attention and we have been discussing it on the floor in this body as it relates to the underlying bill. I have never understood ``full funding'' to mean that the Federal Government should fully fund the legal fees for schools to resolve complaints under IDEA. The ``full funding'' of IDEA that I am familiar with is the Federal goal of providing 40 percent of the cost of special education services to students. No one that I hear speaking of full funding talks about lawsuits, they talk about services to children. Unfortunately, schools do not have the luxury of ignoring complaints, however frivolous they may be. They must assume that every complaint filed with be upheld and prepare accordingly. That diverts funds from other educational services. Once the complaint is filed, the school must find a way to pay for the legal services it will require, and local education funding is the only pool of resources available to school districts. This means local education will suffer when a frivolous lawsuit is filed, because the school will have to divert funds away from other priorities, even special education services, to pay for the cost of resolving the complaint. This body should not overlook the fact that frivolous lawsuits are diverting limited resources away from services, eroding the effect of increased Federal appropriations. This amendment would create a simple protection to defend schools from frivolous lawsuits and help retain Federal funds in proper streams to provide services for disabled students. Parents filing legitimate complaints would not be liable for attorney's fees. The standard set by this amendment is higher than the standard currently followed by the courts in civil rights cases. Some will argue that this amendment infringes on the rights of parents to pursue a complaint against a school district. That is not the case at all. This amendment simply provides a means for school districts to avoid the unnecessary costs of defending themselves from a frivolous lawsuit. Legitimate complaints under IDEA would not be affected. Even complaints that could be considered marginally frivolous would not be affected. Only those complaints that meet a high standard of frivolity would be met with approved sanctions by the courts. I believe this is a reasonable approach to an important issue and one that the Senate should be able to accept without objection.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric today. I want people to know exactly what it is about. I will be opposing Senator Harkin's amendment. I will be supporting Senator Gregg's amendment. Senator Gregg's amendment will actually work us toward achieving the goal of full funding for IDEA. It is not a political statement. We have been having this debate for some time. There hasn't been the kind of progress any of us would like to have on it, but there has been steady progress. There has been more steady progress since this President and Senator Gregg have been working on this issue. During the 8 years President Clinton was in office, the increase in part B funds was $1.4 billion. Under this President--a much shorter time--it has been $3.7 billion. That is reality versus rhetoric. I want to make a few comments about the bill as a whole because we haven't had a chance to actually debate that. I want to point out how bipartisan the reauthorization was that came out of committee, how well people worked on it, worked on it together, resolved differences and made it possible for it to come to the floor and now to pass the floor in a relatively short time, I hope, so we hopefully can have a conference committee and work out any differences with the House and get this legislation into place. This reauthorization is past due. I am pleased the Senate has begun consideration of S. 1248, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. There are few issues as important as the education of our Nation's youth. Making sure all children receive a good education has been a longstanding goal of this body. I am pleased the committee was able to reach unanimous support of the underlying bill, and I hope this body will act quickly to agree to this important legislation and send it to conference. Since Congress first began providing State grant funding for the education of disabled students in 1966, the process for ensuring every disabled student receives a free, appropriate public education has been refined and improved from one reauthorization to the next. I believe this legislation is another important step in that process. While there are many improvements to the law in this legislation, I want to highlight four changes which I feel are most important to my home State of Wyoming. First, there is an increased emphasis on early identification and intervention. Wyoming currently uses the model that identifies students as disabled once they fall more than two grade levels behind. Many States use the same method, or a method called the IQ discrepancy test. Both of these models tend to limit the positive effects that timely services will have on a student's growth. Unfortunately, States are compelled to use these models because of the requirements that exist in Federal law. This bill provides for a set-aside of part B funds that can be used for services such as tutoring or other special assistance to students who are at risk of being identified as needing special education. That will help these students meet their potential. Research by the President's Commission on Special Education and the National Research Council has identified important benefits to providing early educational intervention. They suggest early educational intervention can reduce the number of children referred to special education. That research also shows students receiving early educational intervention and who are referred to special education frequently require less intensive services. I believe this is an important step toward ensuring that other disabled students receive the services they need without placing children in the special education programs unnecessarily. By using funds for early intervention services, schools will be able to provide services in a very seamless fashion to students with disabilities or students who may be unnecessarily referred to special education programs. Second, this legislation addresses the needs of rural States by clearly defining what is a highly qualified teacher. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, which received large bipartisan support in Congress, all teachers in public elementary and secondary schools must meet the highly qualified teacher standard. In rural States such as Wyoming, many teachers, including special education teachers, are responsible for multiple subjects. In my home State, they are sometimes responsible for multiple grades as well. The legislation we are considering would work hand in hand with the No Child Left Behind Act to help address the concerns of teachers in this challenging position. This bill requires every disabled child to be taught by a highly qualified teacher, but it also maintains State flexibility to determine what constitutes highly qualified. The only requirement is that special education teachers have an undergraduate degree and be fully certified as special education instructors, and that the students have a chance to be taught by an instructor who is highly qualified in the subject area. The bill does not even require that be the same person. In many schools, disabled students are placed in classrooms with their non-disabled peers, and they receive instructions from more than one teacher. Students with disabilities would be instructed in the appropriate subject area by a highly qualified teacher who has demonstrated mastery of the subject, but they would also receive support from a teacher who meets the highly qualified standard for special education. It is a very important distinction. For teachers who are responsible for both the special education and the content area, this legislation preserves the flexibility of the State that was created under No Child Left Behind to define what constitutes a highly qualified teacher. I continue to be impressed that more than 95 percent of Wyoming teachers meet the highly qualified teacher standard, including its special educators. This legislation will support the commitment of States such as Wyoming with a 95-percent rate to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, whether it is a special education classroom or not. The third point of the bill, that I want to address is that this legislation makes improvements to the disciplinary system that operates under current law. A concern I have heard from parents and educators is that the discipline of students with disabilities has led to the creation of a two-tier disciplinary system. Students with disabilities are treated differently from their peers because it is required by law. I don't believe that is in the best interest of these students when we are asking, for academic purposes, that we place them in the least restrictive environment. It is inconsistent to say we would treat disabled students as we treat their peers until they are in need of discipline. Disabled students are able to learn responsibility just like their peers. We should give them a chance to learn the same kind of responsibility we expect of other students. Many parents I talk with about discipline are concerned that we not allow teachers to discipline disabled students too harshly. I agree. I think everyone agrees. I support the bill we are considering because it preserves protections for disabled students, like the protection that schools must abide by the manifest determination standard, which requires schools to determine if the student's disability led to the behavior--that is a key--if the student's disability led to the behavior. This bill also preserves the rights of parents to question the school's decision. I also believe this legislation makes significant improvements in permitting teachers and school administrators to properly discipline students with disabilities when a need is identified. Schools are given a margin of flexibility to remove disabled students from their classroom when a dangerous situation presents itself. The school is still accountable to the parent, however, and must make every effort to return the student to the classroom as soon as possible. Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of State flexibility. For years, local educational agencies have been permitted to use flexibility with their funding. As the Federal Government increases its commitment to funding special education programs, local districts in most States are able to shift funding into other priorities. Traditionally, their funding has not even been limited in its use to educational purposes. This flexibility has never benefitted Wyoming. That is because Wyoming has decided to use an alternative financing method for its special education programs. Instead of the State passing Federal funding on to the local districts, Wyoming retains the bulk of the funding at the State level and reimburses districts for their special education expenses. Part of the reason for this approach is we do not pay for our education with property taxes as most States do. We use mineral taxes, which come from a few spots in the State. This system has worked in Wyoming for several reasons, including the help it provides to shield local districts from the cost of services for severely disabled students. Some of the districts in Wyoming are so small that a single student with a severe disability would require all of the funding available to that district to be spent on a single student. That would threaten the services to other children with disabilities and subject the district to due process hearings under the law. Instead, Wyoming has elected to use its allocations under part B of the special education program as reimbursements. Even very small districts can confidently provide services to students with disabilities with the understanding that the State will reimburse them for those services. Even though the system is much more effective at providing services to students with disabilities, the lack of flexibility in the use of Federal funding has tied the hands of the State's administrators who would like to use the funding for early identification and other educational programs. The irony is, if Wyoming were to operate their special education programs differently, and less effectively, they would enjoy much more flexibility with their funding. Right now in Wyoming, families of students with disabilities are moving from other States to enroll their children in Wyoming schools because we have done so well at meeting their needs. Even though our programs are among the best in the region--and, I argue, among the best in the country--Wyoming is penalized for doing a good job just because we do it differently than Federal law suggests we do it. The phrase ``one size fits all'' has been used a lot in the Senate lately on the subject of education. But at the risk of abusing the term, this is a perfect example of a one-size-fits-all program that does not fit Wyoming. If Wyoming were to pursue a less effective model of providing services to students with disabilities, the State could use more flexibility. Instead, because the State decided to use a system that places the needs of the students first, we are denied the same flexibility provided every other State. The legislation we are considering now would address this concern. It would allow States that are responsible for the largest share of non- Federal special education funding to enjoy more flexibility at the State level. It is important to note that this flexibility is only applied to educational programs so no State can drain funding away from its educational programs for other purposes. The funding has to be used in conjunction with State educational efforts. This is a critical piece of legislation, and one I feel strongly about retaining both in this legislation and the bill that is produced by the conference process. Those are the four main points of the actual legislation. That is legislation, again, that we unanimously supported out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--that is no small achievement. It is important we move forward in the process. That is what we are doing now. Of course, we are debating two amendments, the Harkin amendment and the Gregg amendment, which will each be voted on this afternoon. I will make a few comments in support of the Gregg amendment to fully fund the IDEA program. According to assumptions in the Senate budget resolution this body passed earlier this year, we will have increased spending by 75 percent from 2001 levels. The Gregg amendment builds on those increases and sets us on a path to reach full funding by 2011. That is a very realistic path, one that we can do, one that we can slightly accelerate. It is not just a statement but something that can happen. I have heard colleagues comment that we can do anything with statistics. That is a common perception. But if my colleagues would rather look at the real dollars, we spend more now on education than we ever have in this country at the Federal level. Right now, under the assumptions of the fiscal year 2005 budget, we will be at 20 percent of the share of Federal special education. The Gregg amendment would take us to the 40-percent mark in 7 years. That is the mark we have in the original legislation. I have mentioned, again, that happened in 1966. We are at a higher level now than we have ever been. It is pretty remarkable since it took over 30 years to get to 20 percent, but most of the progress that has occurred has occurred under this President in the past 4 years. I want to make it clear, we are closer to full funding now than we ever have been in the history of this IDEA program. To get there within 7 years is within reach, but we should not be confused that mandatory spending is the right solution. I can hear the Members who made previous speeches saying: No, no, this is not mandatory. The way I read it, it is mandatory. But even if it were not mandatory, I am not aware of a program, particularly not this program, where we reduced spending. Whatever level we take it to at this moment is where it will stay. Then we will fight to show we are more concerned than anyone else in raising the revenues in the future. So we need to have a rational, realistic, and regular approach to raising the level of IDEA funding until we can come in compliance with the 40 percent that we promised. We have made significant progress in the past 4 years toward full funding under the current administration and congressional leadership. There is no reason to assume we will not continue to make significant progress in the near future. I want to mention again that under the previous President, during his 8 years, we increased part B funding $1.4 billion. Under this President, in 3 years we have increased it $3.7 billion. I have to point out, under the previous administration we were funding during a surplus. We were funding in period of growth, not a recession. We were not funding during a time of terrorism. We were not funding during a time of war in Afghanistan. We were not funding during a time of war in Iraq. We were funding during a surplus, and we did not meet that 40-percent goal. Now, when we have severe budget constraints, there is a political statement that says: Give it all to them. And then there is a balanced approach that Senator Gregg has that says: Let's grow it and really get it done and quit making the political statements on it. We have an opportunity to advance IDEA and to advance the funding on it. I know we will take advantage of both. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, from May 1-3, 2004 more than 1200 students from across the United States came to Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' This is the most extensive program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People'' program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. I am very proud to note that a class from Cheyenne Central High School in Cheyenne represented the State of Wyoming in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's capital and compete at the national level. The 3-day ``We the People'' National Finals Competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge before a panel of adult judges while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by questions designed to probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Columnist David Broder once described this annual competition as ``the place to come to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' Most recently, the ``We the People'' program was highlighted at two national conferences held in 2003: the White House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service, and the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education. Evaluations and independent studies have validated the effectiveness of the ``We the People'' program on students' civic knowledge and attitudes. This innovative civic education program continues to be one of the best antidotes to apathy and cynicism in our Nation. I am certain everyone enjoyed their participation in the ``We the People'' national finals and I applaud the achievements of all who took part in the program. We should all be proud that so many are focused on and are learning about the fundamental principles and ideals that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of John Negroponte to be our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. When he takes his oath of office, Ambassador Negroponte will be our first ambassador to Iraq since the Gulf War of 1991. I have had the pleasure of meeting with the ambassador many times over the last 3 years. He was a member of the Foreign Service from 1960 to 1997 and he is currently serving as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. His leadership there has been exemplary as he has provided our country with a strong voice and a presence at the United Nations that has been vital during these extremely difficult times. His experience at the United Nations gives him a great deal of insight into the thinking of the international community that will be invaluable in his new role in Iraq. Soon Iraq will be welcomed back into the family of nations and the rights and freedom so cherished by the people of our nation will become a part of daily life in Iraq. Given our history in the region, I am certain my colleagues understand the wisdom of appointing an experienced diplomat with an informed opinion and a vision for the installation of a new government and the birth of a new nation of Iraq. During our consideration of Ambassador Negroponte's nomination, I have heard some of my colleagues express their concerns about recent events in Iraq. That is understandable, because these are concerns we all share about this sensitive region of the world. We must not, however, allow those legitimate concerns to be politicized and used as a club against the President and his efforts to stabilize Iraq and introduce democracy there. Our soldiers' lives are on the line and we owe them every consideration while they are in harm's way. Before anyone says I am being overly sensitive to the rhetoric of a campaign year, let me share with you a few of the details about what happened during a trip I took in April when I was able to visit wounded U.S. soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. Before we met them, I was anticipating they would need some encouragement and we should try to lift their spirits after all they'd been through. The opposite turned out to be the case. They encouraged me and strengthened my spirit and resolve to see this through to the end. Every one of them, these brave men and women, said to me--``We are making a difference in Iraq. We know the people there. We know our job. We are doing our job and the people are responding to what we are doing. We are making a difference and we want to go back there with our comrades so we can finish the job.'' I don't believe anyone knows better than those who are serving on the front lines--those actually doing the work and living the dangers of life in a war zone every day. We have made a difference in Iraq. We have removed a brutal dictator from power and we are working with the Iraqi people to build a nation based on democracy and freedom. We are continuing to make a difference every day in the schools we help to build and operate, in the infrastructure we continue to improve and repair, and in the sovereignty of the people of Iraq which continues to command our deepest respect. We will continue to make a difference through democratization and the rule of law, economic reconstruction, and security and counterterrorism. By supporting all these areas, our diplomatic, civilian, and military personnel will make a lasting difference in the lives of the Iraqi people and they will, through their efforts have literally changed the world. I hope my colleagues will remember that when we speak here on the Senate floor, our words are heard by those brave men and women overseas. Our words are heard by their families and their friends who make it possible for them to serve our Nation so well. They are also heard by our enemies who look to twist and distort our open discussions to make it appear that we have lost our will to see this through to the end. We must remember that fact each time we speak. If you wonder how I know if what I say is true, I can share my sources with you--our U.S. soldiers. They have asked me more than once: How come everything sounds so bad back home when it is improving in Iraq? We keep hearing this rhetoric which is based on the fight to win a presidential election, and it has nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq. Nonetheless, it has an impact on the morale and safety of our troops. I have spoken here on the Senate floor about the importance of supporting our troops. I noted that we must remember to pray for our troops. When we do, I think we should also be praying for the opposition as well. We should pray that the hearts of those we fight will soften, and they will realize the role they are playing in the world and in Iraq. It is not too late for them to join us in the effort to build a better Iraq for all its people. Praying can make a difference, and it is up to all of us to do that every day. It is something we can do that is real and it has real power. With our faith, and our belief in our cause because it is just, we will continue to provide the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces, their spouses and their families with the support and encouragement they need and deserve by keeping them in our thoughts and in our prayers. We also need to pray for those few soldiers at Abu Ghraib whose actions were severely misguided as well as those who suffered the shame and humiliation of those acts. I have heard many speak today about tearing down this prison facility, and that is a good idea. Let's rid the world of this terrible prison and do it completely so that it will never house or harm another Iraqi. I hope that people in the United States and throughout the world will remember that these deeds do not represent the character of any but a few misguided American soldiers. This should not be the image that the world has of our troops because it is not the truth. I am pleased that action is being taken immediately to address this situation. Charges are being levied, investigations are continuing, and changes are being made to the prison administration. We are blessed to have a truly exceptional military force whose image should not be tarnished by the actions of a few. We have a job to finish in Iraq and we must not shy away from completing it. The more rapidly the people of Iraq are able to stand on their own, the sooner our troops will be able to come home. We have undertaken a job, and we cannot afford to fail to complete the task at hand. I have often heard it said that exceptional times call for exceptional people to lead us through them. We must have someone in Iraq who is able to fully represent the United States at the time the Coalition Provisional Authority transitions out of the country. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee stated this morning, we cannot expect to wake up the morning on July 1 and have a fully functioning U.S. Embassy. The time to plan for that day is upon us and I encourage my colleagues to join me in taking the first vital step by supporting Ambassador Negroponte's nomination. With the confirmation of this exceptional individual, we will ensure that we have a strong U.S. voice on the ground and the right person in charge who will show the world the level of our commitment to Iraq. It will also underscore our determination to make life better for Iraqis for generations to come. It is a dream we share with the Iraqi people and, with the right people in charge, it is a dream that will come true.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. The Washington Post states: What's needed now is not to block these regulations but to ensure that they are vigorously enforced with an eye to protect the vulnerable workers the law was intended to benefit. I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment which will allow the Department of Labor to provide clearer and fairer overtime rights for workers. I also urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Harkin's reform blocking amendment which will only line the pockets of the trial lawyers. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we asked the final rule clearly ensure the overtime rights of these workers would not be restricted. I am very pleased the Department made the changes to clearly reflect the overtime rights of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses would not be restricted. Let me highlight some of changes that were made in the final rule to better protect the overtime rights of workers and many others. The final rule states first responders such as police, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians are eligible for overtime pay. No question; no gray area, it clears it up. The reference to training in the Armed Forces has been deleted and clarifies that veteran status does not affect overtime. The veterans will get their overtime regardless of the training received in the armed services. The final rule also states licensed practical nurses do not qualify as exempt learned professionals and are therefore eligible for overtime pay. The final rule retains previous law regarding registered nurses which assures them of overtime. The final rule provides blue-collar workers are eligible for overtime pay. To be considered exempt from overtime, the salary level for highly compensated employees is the final rule which has been increased from $65,000 to $100,000. The final rule clarifies the contractual obligation under collective bargaining agreements is not affected. The final rule maintains the previous law requirement that exempt administrative employees must exercise discretion and independent judgment. The final rule clarifies there is no change to current law regarding the educational requirement for the professional exemption. Significant changes were made to address the concerns raised about the proposed rule. This is exactly how the public comment period is designed to work and exactly how it did work in this situation. The regulatory process worked, and we have a final rule that is better for both workers and employers. Again, we are talking about the small businessmen who do not have time to go through a lot of this or have the ability to hire attorneys to figure these things out. We need to keep it simple and understandable. The rule does that. Before the final rule was published, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood in the Senate and blasted the proposed rule on the very issues that the final rule corrects. The Senator from Iowa still wants to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime pay for white collar employees. This would, in effect, tell the American people that the public's role in the regulatory process means nothing. This would say those 75,000 comments mean nothing. This would leave complex and confusing rules that have not been significantly changed in 50 years. We owe all our constituents more than that. When I am back in Wyoming, I like to hold town meetings to find out what is on the minds of my constituents. At each town meeting there is usually someone in attendance quite concerned about government regulations. I am often told to rein in big government and keep rules simple, keep them current, keep them responsive, keep them understandable for small business, and make sure they make sense in today's ever-changing workplace. My colleague on the other side of the aisle would take the opposite approach. Instead of keeping it simple and current, he wants to keep all of the gray areas from before and impose them on a second set of regulations. That is what we need--multiple sets of regulations; now a misunderstandable set with a new set imposed on it, protecting the old set so the trial attorneys' dream still exists. He wants to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from updating the outdated rules regarding white collar employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirements. Simply put, it is an attempt to reject the new, turn back the clock, and look to yesterday for the answers to tomorrow's problems. The amendment keeps the confusion. It is an approach that is doomed to failure. I am opposed to it. There is no question the workplace has dramatically changed during the last half century. The regulations governing white collar exemptions, however, remain substantially the same as they were 50 years ago. The existing rule takes us back to the time when workers held titles such as straw boss, keypunch operator, leg man, and other occupations that no longer exist today. Our economy has evolved. New occupations have emerged that were not contemplated when the regulations were written. A 1999 study by the General Accounting Office, GAO, recommended that the Department of Labor comprehensively review current regulations and restructure white collar exemptions to better accommodate today's workplace and to anticipate future workplace trends. This is precisely what the Labor Department has done. What will Senator Harkin's effort to block the final rule do? It will set the clock back to 1954 and try to force a square peg--the 21st century jobs--in the round hole of the workplace 50 years ago. Worse, it keeps the gray areas of the past rule instead of clarifying. This obstruction will undermine the Department of Labor efforts to extend overtime protection to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers. Under the old rule, only those workers earning less than $8,060 a year are automatically protected for overtime pay. The Department's new rule will raise this threshold to $23,660 a year. The final rule provides lower income workers with the protection they deserve. By undermining the Department's efforts to better protect lower income workers, who is this amendment going to protect? The Department determined that few, if any, employees earning between $23,660 and $100,000 will lose their overtime pay under the new rule. The Department estimates that 107,000 employees who are earning over $100,000 could--could but not necessarily would--lose their overtime. Could our colleagues be willing to deny overtime pay for an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers in order to protect the overtime for the 107,000 workers earning above $100,000? Is Congress going to undermine the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is to protect low- wage workers? The Senator from Iowa and his effort to block the final overtime rule will not protect first responders, veterans, blue collar workers, or nurses. The final rule has been improved to clearly protect the overtime rights of these workers. Therefore, the opponents of updating and clarifying the white collar overtime rule had to come up with new objections. No lawsuits necessary, it is very clear. That is what the Department intends. On April 13, the AFL-CIO released and began soliciting contributions for a political TV ad attacking the Department of Labor final overtime rule. Here is what is interesting about that: That attack came a week before the final rule was publicly available, before they knew what was in it. Such tactics suggest a greater interest in playing election year politics than in protecting workers. Let me respond to some misleading claims about the final rule. Some have claimed that team leaders will lose overtime pay under the final rule. In fact, the new rule will guarantee overtime protection for blue collar team leaders and is more protective of overtime pay for white collar team leaders. Furthermore, there is no change to current law regarding the overtime status of computer employees, financial services employees, journalists, insurance claims directors, funeral directors, athletic trainers, nursery schoolteachers, or chefs. It is time to get beyond the election year rhetoric and misleading information about who is supposedly harmed by the Department's new overtime requirements; therefore, I am supporting the amendment offered by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to require the final overtime requirements to safeguard the overtime rights of workers earning less than $23,660 and certain categories of workers that some erroneously claim would lose overtime rights. His amendment very specifically names those and assures those rights. It is in the rule as well. I am confident the final regulations published by the Department of Labor on April 23 already do that, too. The Gregg amendment serves to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress to ensure that the overtime rights of 55 listed occupations and job classifications are not weakened. These occupations and job classifications include the team leaders, registered nurses, the licensed practical nurses, oil and gas workers, refinery workers, steelworkers, shipyard workers, journalists, firefighters, police officers, nursery schoolteachers, and financial services workers, to name a few. The Harkin amendment effectively blocks the Department from extending overtime pay to low-wage workers and updating confusing overtime requirements. In contrast to the Harkin amendment, the Gregg amendment does not undermine the Department of Labor efforts to update and clarify the overtime requirements and extend overtime protection to 1.3 million low-wage workers and clear up these gray areas that just help the attorneys. The amendment offered by Senator Gregg will ensure that the overtime rights are guaranteed to those 1.3 million low-wage workers, strengthened for another 5.4 million workers, and clarified for all workers and employers. The antiquated and confusing white collar exemptions have created a windfall for trial lawyers. Ambiguities and outdated terms have generated significant confusion regarding which employees are exempt from overtime requirements. The confusion has generated significant litigation and overtime pay awards for highly paid white collar employees. Wage and hour cases--this is important--now exceed discrimination suits as the leading type of employment law class action. The amendment assures those gray areas will stay, causing court action right now. The new rule clarifies and requires these areas be cleared up, but more clearly states the people who will absolutely get overtime. It states who will be entitled now. It protects the workers and puts the money in the workers' pocket, not in legal action. If these rules are clear, employers will know when they are complying with the law. This is important, particularly and especially for small business. That is for whom I always make my pleas. Small businesses are the only ones being punished by the rules. They don't have the specialists to determine the gray areas. So they wind up in court having to solve the gray areas after the fact. It is much better to solve it before the fact. We have to worry about small businesses which should not have to rely on lawyers or accountants to tell them how to pay their employees. The Department of Labor has estimated these new regulations are going to cost employers an additional $275 million on an annual basis. However, the new overtime rule will provide much needed clarity. As a former small business owner, I know employers want to be able to pay their workers, not their lawyers. The Harkin blocking amendment would only add to the current state of confusion. Instead of preserving overtime rights, which the Harkin amendment purports to do, it will create even more complexity and litigation, piling rule on rule. The blocking amendment creates a two-tiered scheme which would require two different tests to determine a worker's overtime status. The present gray area and the other one would have to be worked to be combined. So anything that would have been a gray area before will still be a gray area. It will freeze workers in jobs they have outgrown. The blocking amendment will mire the final overtime regulation in years of litigation, likely preventing them from ever taking effect. The only clear winners for the effort to block the new rule will be the trial lawyers who will benefit from a continued state of confusion. Most people would prefer to live in a different state than that. We are spending taxpayer dollars sorting through cases that could be solved with clarity. Under the blocking amendment, workers will still have to wait years for a court to act before they could receive the overtime pay they deserve. Why should the United States stand in between workers and their overtime pay? We need to defeat the blocking amendment that would block the final rules from taking effect. We need to ensure that American workers deserving of overtime pay will see their hard work reflected in their paychecks, not in litigation. Today's Washington Post editorial urges lawmakers to hold off blocking the new overtime rules from taking effect. I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, actually we are debating the JOBS bill right now. There is a lot of conversation that takes us in another direction. I suspect that is for a very specific purpose--actually to get into Presidential elections. What we ought to be concentrating on is making sure there are jobs in this country. Some of those jobs are at stake right now because the WTO said we violated international law and they placed a 5-percent penalty on companies from the United States, and that penalty grows at 1 percent a month. While we delay on this bill, the price is going up for American business, and when business declines, the jobs decline. Perhaps that is a point one side would like to make. Maybe that is what they want to have happen. I don't want jobs to decline. I don't care who is President or what the race is. It is very important we get jobs. Part of the discussion we have entered into under this JOBS bill has been one about the overtime rule the Secretary of Labor has published. We have heard a lot of comments about overtime from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I want people to know the rest of the story. I want people to be aware of the smokescreen that covers election year politics with misleading rhetoric about overtime pay. It is time to strip rhetoric from reality, look through the smokescreen, and see who is really helped and hurt by Senator Harkin's attempt to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime eligibility for white-collar workers. That is right, the word is ``updating.'' The Department was told by GAO the rule needed to be updated. The rule was outdated. The rule referred to things people cannot possibly comply with because nobody knows what they are anymore. It is confusing as well. The Senator from Iowa has proposed keeping the trial lawyers' dream. He wants to keep the gray area in the bill as an addition to the rule. Yes. There is a gray area. I can tell you this mostly affects small businesses. I can tell you small businesses realize it is going to cost them about $375 million a year in overtime. I don't know how we can talk about a decrease in overtime when it costs them $375 million more in overtime, but to have the gray area cleared up they are willing to do that. Why are they willing to do that? Because right now that $375 million potential is for lawyers' fees to decide gray areas. Who needs that? We would rather put the money in the workers' pockets. This clarifies who gets overtime, but it clarifies it more broadly than anything we have ever done before. Do you know right now the only people who know for sure they will get overtime are those who make less than $8,060 a year? Yes. If you earn over $8,060 a year, you move into this gray area where you may have to hire an attorney to help you figure out whether you get overtime. The small businesses have to do that. This rule the Department of Labor has issued is going to raise that $8,060 to $23,660--pretty much triple the amount. It is long overdue. It needs to be done, and it was willing to be done from the very beginning. The Department also put in there that white-collar workers earning over $65,000 were not assured of overtime. They listened to 75,000 comments and said, We picked the wrong number. It should be over $100,000. You notice I mentioned white-collar workers. Blue-collar workers are exempt and assured of the overtime. It doesn't have the $100,000 limit on it. Another thing that disturbs me about the debate we are having is the implication that without a rule, without a law, there would be no overtime. I want you to know there are businesses--particularly small businesses--out there that are not only paying overtime for some special tasks, but they are paying double time and triple time to be sure they have the workers they need to do the job. There needs to be a rule. The rule needs to be one that is newer than the 50-year-old one so we can understand the jobs that are being talked about. Last March, the Department solicited public comments on a proposal to update these regulations. They received more than 75,000 comments on the proposal. I happen to believe public comment plays a critical role in the regulatory process. We want the public to comment on any new rule being written. We then want the Department to review these comments and to respond to them. That is how the process is supposed to work. This is the regulatory process Americans expect and deserve. I have seen times before when agencies did not pay attention. Then it became critical for us to do something. That is not the case in this instance. They listened to the 75,000 comments that were sent in writing. It is obvious they listened to the comments on this floor, and they made those revisions in the rule before they published the final rule. The Department of Labor carefully considered those 75,000 comments. They listened to the concerns of the American people, and then they did the final overtime rule and they made substantial changes to the proposal. I have my own concerns with the proposed rule. In fact, I wrote a letter to Secretary Chao, along with Senator Collins, asking the Department to pay particular attention to protecting the overtime status of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.