Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is of great importance to my State. Last year a bipartisan coalition of Senators came together to pass the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2007. Since that time, some lawyers and bureaucrats in Washington have taken it upon themselves to misinterpret the law. We need to fix this. The legislation I am introducing will yet again reiterate congressional intent as to how the program should be run. The bill that passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act 2006, which was a part originally of the pension reform bill, fixed the abandoned mine land trust fund so it would run as Congress originally intended, which was some 30 years earlier. For the first time in years, States were scheduled to receive funding they were promised that would be used to clean up abandoned coal mines where that was needed. For States that had been certified by the Office of Surface Mining as having completed their coal cleanup work, funding was expected to go to these States to do whatever the State legislators chose to be a priority for that State. The language is simple and straightforward. It reads: Payments shall be made in 7 equal annual installments, beginning in fiscal year 2008. As we passed the legislation, everyone involved knew what that meant. For years, our State's money has been held hostage to pay for other programs. With the passage of the abandoned mine land bill, the money would flow with no strings attached and no diversions to other programs. Congressional intent was very clear. Unfortunately, last week I was told by lawyers and bureaucrats at the Department of Interior that they have decided to ignore the congressional intent and have chosen to send the money to States such as Wyoming in the form of grants. It seems they don't have enough Federal employees because their plan will create an onerous program that will undoubtedly require more hires. As one of the lead Senators in passing the original legislation, I know what Congress meant when we wrote: Payments shall be made in 7 equal and annual installments, beginning in fiscal year 2008. To ensure that no confusion existed, I met with the Office of Surface Mining and with the Office of Management and Budget on numerous occasions to discuss that particular issue. Congress intended for payments to be made. Congress did not expect the agency to create a new grant program. When I realized this egregious misinterpretation of the law was a possibility, I took immediate action. I asked those same lawyers and bureaucrats who did not read the law to provide me with the legislative language that makes it explicitly clear that they should interpret the law the way Congress intended. That is the bill I am introducing today with my colleague from Montana and the other Senator from Wyoming. Only in the absurd world that is Washington could an agency believe the word ``payment'' means grant. I look forward to working with my colleagues to swiftly move this forward so the executive branch can finally follow what Congress intended. I have to tell my colleagues it was quite a shock to find out a whole program was going to be set up so Wyoming could ask for its money piecemeal. We have been begging for 30 years to get this money. The money has been paid in by the coal companies to cover reclamation and then anything that had to do with coal impact. We did the reclamation. We are now handling the coal impact. But the money has been held hostage; $550 million worth of money has been held over that period. Last year Congress said: Wyoming and Montana--Montana has $58 million--deserve their money. So do several other States. We will give it to them. Now there was a little question about what that did with debt, but we were able to show them that paying off debt with debt wound up with the same amount of debt but wasn't stealing from the States. So we were able to get that confirmed by this body and put into law. It said we would be paid in seven equal annual payments, beginning in the year 2008. Now we find out it could be millions of payments over a number of years under a grant program. They do realize they can't deny any grant request the State has, but each and every transaction would have to go through somebody. We are not about to hire that many people to do what is explicit in the language. I will ask the rest of my colleagues to help us on this amendment. We will find a place to put it, and we will get it done this year so the intent of the law we passed last year will get done.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is of great importance to my State. Last year a bipartisan coalition of Senators came together to pass the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2007. Since that time, some lawyers and bureaucrats in Washington have taken it upon themselves to misinterpret the law. We need to fix this. The legislation I am introducing will yet again reiterate congressional intent as to how the program should be run. The bill that passed as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act 2006, which was a part originally of the pension reform bill, fixed the abandoned mine land trust fund so it would run as Congress originally intended, which was some 30 years earlier. For the first time in years, States were scheduled to receive funding they were promised that would be used to clean up abandoned coal mines where that was needed. For States that had been certified by the Office of Surface Mining as having completed their coal cleanup work, funding was expected to go to these States to do whatever the State legislators chose to be a priority for that State. The language is simple and straightforward. It reads: Payments shall be made in 7 equal annual installments, beginning in fiscal year 2008. As we passed the legislation, everyone involved knew what that meant. For years, our State's money has been held hostage to pay for other programs. With the passage of the abandoned mine land bill, the money would flow with no strings attached and no diversions to other programs. Congressional intent was very clear. Unfortunately, last week I was told by lawyers and bureaucrats at the Department of Interior that they have decided to ignore the congressional intent and have chosen to send the money to States such as Wyoming in the form of grants. It seems they don't have enough Federal employees because their plan will create an onerous program that will undoubtedly require more hires. As one of the lead Senators in passing the original legislation, I know what Congress meant when we wrote: Payments shall be made in 7 equal and annual installments, beginning in fiscal year 2008. To ensure that no confusion existed, I met with the Office of Surface Mining and with the Office of Management and Budget on numerous occasions to discuss that particular issue. Congress intended for payments to be made. Congress did not expect the agency to create a new grant program. When I realized this egregious misinterpretation of the law was a possibility, I took immediate action. I asked those same lawyers and bureaucrats who did not read the law to provide me with the legislative language that makes it explicitly clear that they should interpret the law the way Congress intended. That is the bill I am introducing today with my colleague from Montana and the other Senator from Wyoming. Only in the absurd world that is Washington could an agency believe the word ``payment'' means grant. I look forward to working with my colleagues to swiftly move this forward so the executive branch can finally follow what Congress intended. I have to tell my colleagues it was quite a shock to find out a whole program was going to be set up so Wyoming could ask for its money piecemeal. We have been begging for 30 years to get this money. The money has been paid in by the coal companies to cover reclamation and then anything that had to do with coal impact. We did the reclamation. We are now handling the coal impact. But the money has been held hostage; $550 million worth of money has been held over that period. Last year Congress said: Wyoming and Montana--Montana has $58 million--deserve their money. So do several other States. We will give it to them. Now there was a little question about what that did with debt, but we were able to show them that paying off debt with debt wound up with the same amount of debt but wasn't stealing from the States. So we were able to get that confirmed by this body and put into law. It said we would be paid in seven equal annual payments, beginning in the year 2008. Now we find out it could be millions of payments over a number of years under a grant program. They do realize they can't deny any grant request the State has, but each and every transaction would have to go through somebody. We are not about to hire that many people to do what is explicit in the language. I will ask the rest of my colleagues to help us on this amendment. We will find a place to put it, and we will get it done this year so the intent of the law we passed last year will get done.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the 2007 fire season was one of the worst in recent history. Millions of acres burned across America. The fires destroyed homes, and their damage is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These fires would have been worse, if not for the skill and bravery of the aerial firefighters who risked their lives to fight them. Aerial firefighters take on the dangerous tasks of maneuvering aerial vehicles in and out of fire zones. Each time they step in a plane, their life is at risk. Unfortunately, while we expect aerial firefighters to risk their lives to help control fires, we refuse to provide their families with the knowledge that they will be made financially whole if their husband or wife dies in the line of duty. This is because aerial firefighters do not qualify for death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit, PSOB, program, which provides financial and educational benefits to individuals serving a public safety agency in an official capacity, on a paid or volunteer basis. Currently, those receiving benefits include, but are not limited to, law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, ambulance crew members, and corrections officers. Senator Feinstein and I say that these pilots do the same work and take on the same risks as other public safety officers. They should get the same benefits. That is the reason that we have introduced the Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007. This important legislation will remedy this problem and makes aerial firefighters eligible for death benefits. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA, the agency that administers the PSOB, has ruled that aerial pilots are ineligible because they are contractors and not employed directly by the federal and state agencies involved in wildland fire management and suppression. The 1980 official finding that prohibits the pilots and their families from receiving benefits states that pilots are not ``a `public safety officer' as this term is defined in the PSOB ACT because [they are] not serving a public agency in an official capacity . . . as a fireman.'' Unfortunately, pilots also often do not receive benefits from their employers. Federal agencies outsource air tanker missions to the lowest-cost private operators who do not provide benefits to keep their costs down. Some companies do offer a minimal amount of life insurance. However, it is expensive, both for the pilot and the contractor. In the ``low cost'' competitive bid situation they are in, the contractors cannot afford to add more expenses to the payroll or they reduce their chances of winning a fire suppression contract--and go out of business. Other forms of life insurance are also difficult to obtain because of the dangerous nature of aerial firefighting. It is common sense legislation that deserves the support of my colleagues, and I am pleased to have Senator Feinstein as an original cosponsor. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the appropriate committees to move this legislation forward so that our brave aerial firefighters can take to the skies knowing that their families will be taken care of if they pass away taking care of our country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the 2007 fire season was one of the worst in recent history. Millions of acres burned across America. The fires destroyed homes, and their damage is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These fires would have been worse, if not for the skill and bravery of the aerial firefighters who risked their lives to fight them. Aerial firefighters take on the dangerous tasks of maneuvering aerial vehicles in and out of fire zones. Each time they step in a plane, their life is at risk. Unfortunately, while we expect aerial firefighters to risk their lives to help control fires, we refuse to provide their families with the knowledge that they will be made financially whole if their husband or wife dies in the line of duty. This is because aerial firefighters do not qualify for death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit, PSOB, program, which provides financial and educational benefits to individuals serving a public safety agency in an official capacity, on a paid or volunteer basis. Currently, those receiving benefits include, but are not limited to, law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, ambulance crew members, and corrections officers. Senator Feinstein and I say that these pilots do the same work and take on the same risks as other public safety officers. They should get the same benefits. That is the reason that we have introduced the Aerial Firefighter Relief Act of 2007. This important legislation will remedy this problem and makes aerial firefighters eligible for death benefits. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA, the agency that administers the PSOB, has ruled that aerial pilots are ineligible because they are contractors and not employed directly by the federal and state agencies involved in wildland fire management and suppression. The 1980 official finding that prohibits the pilots and their families from receiving benefits states that pilots are not ``a `public safety officer' as this term is defined in the PSOB ACT because [they are] not serving a public agency in an official capacity . . . as a fireman.'' Unfortunately, pilots also often do not receive benefits from their employers. Federal agencies outsource air tanker missions to the lowest-cost private operators who do not provide benefits to keep their costs down. Some companies do offer a minimal amount of life insurance. However, it is expensive, both for the pilot and the contractor. In the ``low cost'' competitive bid situation they are in, the contractors cannot afford to add more expenses to the payroll or they reduce their chances of winning a fire suppression contract--and go out of business. Other forms of life insurance are also difficult to obtain because of the dangerous nature of aerial firefighting. It is common sense legislation that deserves the support of my colleagues, and I am pleased to have Senator Feinstein as an original cosponsor. In the coming months, I look forward to working with the appropriate committees to move this legislation forward so that our brave aerial firefighters can take to the skies knowing that their families will be taken care of if they pass away taking care of our country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my research director, Ron Hindle, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this is another one of those bittersweet moments for us all as we say goodbye to a member of our extended family, Denis O'Donovan. Denis will soon be retiring and bringing to a close a truly remarkable career in the Senate. Denis has worked in several offices in the Senate during his career, but I would like to think he saved his best for his last post--as the chief clerk of our committee, a post he has held since 1998. I remember when I first came to the committee and had the opportunity to observe Denis at work. I don't think I have ever met anyone who had a better eye for detail, or a better sense of making sure everything was in its proper place. He has a great mind for numbers, and anyone who has ever had to work with a budget knows how frustrating it can be to make sure all the columns add up and are balanced--top to bottom-- and--left to right. As the Senate's only accountant, I admire that kind of precision. In fact, I think our love of numbers may be one of the reasons why we got along so well and enjoyed each other so much. In the years that I have served on the committee, I have had the chance to work with Denis as its chairman and now, as the ranking member. No matter which party had control of the committee, Denis was always there, ready to help in any way he could. That is why he was such a good chief clerk for me, for Senator Kennedy, and for all of us. Looking back, Denis has a lot to be proud of. He has been a part of a lot of the good work the committee has done over the years. Senator Kennedy and I have brought a long list of measures to the Senate floor and then on to the President for his signature and Denis played an important role in every one of them. Thanks in no small part to you, Denis, we have made great progress on a lot of issues that will make life better for all Americans. Now Denis is about to head off to that thoughtful and reflective world known as retirement. He will finally have the time to finish that book--not the one he was writing--the one he was reading. For now, there will be time to do all those things Denis has been putting off for someday. I have a family tradition we call the list of 100 things. Simply put, it is the to do list of all time. You put together a list of the 100 things you have always wanted to do someday--and then you start to get them done--one by one. It is a little more complicated than that, but I will get together with you to explain the whole procedure to you later. It will be one of our gifts to you on your retirement. I know what you are thinking--just what I wanted--more stuff to do! Trust me, you will enjoy this project. And the next time I see you, we will compare notes so I can see how you are doing in your quest for adventure in your retirement. I hope Senator Kennedy will not mind, but I would like to close with a bit of Irish cheer for you--the words of a toast I have often heard, and I am sure you have too. Denis, as you leave us: May the road rise to meet you, May the wind be always at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face. And rains fall soft upon your fields. And until we meet again, May God hold you in the hollow of His hand.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Ron Hindle has done a tremendous job of finding any information that I need and putting it in tremendous format so that it is easily understandable, and even writing it up in words that I can understand. He has been with me the entire time that I have been in the Senate. This is my 11th year. He has done a tremendous job. He worked for Senator Simpson before that. So I welcome him to the floor. Mr. President, in the history of politics, I don't think anyone has ever had their finger on the pulse of the Nation quite like former President Ronald Reagan. Anyone who knew him or heard him speak was instantly warmed by his charm and captivated by his personality. He had a way of expressing himself that enabled him to connect with all of America. He had a unique way of speaking, and that unforgettable Reagan wit let everyone know he was on their side and would do everything he could to make this a better world for us all. I remember one day in particular. It was 1992, and the Republican Convention was going strong. Ronald Reagan approached the podium to give one of his trademark speeches. As he spoke, something told us that this night, this speech, would be different from all the rest. Something told us that we were watching the last major address he would ever give. In his message, he spoke of the importance of doing everything we could to point America toward the day when the nations of the world would turn to us and say: America, you are the model of freedom and prosperity. That was when we would turn to them and say: You ``ain't'' seen nothing yet. It was a wonderful catch phrase that had been around for so many years, but it expressed his feeling that when that day came, something even bigger and greater would be about to make its presence felt throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, today when we hear those words, we are reminded not of a great President, but of a Congress that continues to lag further and further behind the expectations it created in the last election. I know I am not the first one to notice. There have been editorials in the papers asking us when we are going to fulfill the promises that were made in the elections last year by the Democratic majority party. This is also the anniversary of another event. It was about a year ago that what is now the Democratic Party put together a strategy that proved to be successful and they won both Houses of Congress. People were excited and looking forward to the change the Democrats said the election would bring. It seemed that every Member had a press conference during which he or she offered a long laundry list of legislation that was going to be taken up as soon as possible. With such a celebrated beginning, you may be wondering why you ain't seen nothing yet. Trust me, you aren't the only one. I don't think you will see any celebrating in the leader's office or the Speaker's office about the past year's results. So much of what they fought so hard to attain has been lost over the past year. So much of the progress they promised and that we all hoped to see has somehow failed to materialize. I do need to note an exception. The HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that Senator Kennedy chairs and on which I am the senior Republican, has produced a few bills and virtually all of the bills that have passed. If someone as liberal as Senator Kennedy and as conservative as I am can move bills, everyone should be able to, but it requires putting aside ``gotcha'' politics and working for the 80 percent that we can agree on. Is it any wonder that Congress's approval ratings are at an all-time low? As the Senate's only accountant, I well remember all of those times I would come to the Senate floor to debate our Nation's budget. The Democratic Party didn't have the numbers back then to control the Senate, so all we heard was a steady stream of complaints from them about the lack of progress that we were making on the budget and the lack of a coherent plan for spending. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats are in charge, what have they produced? We have all heard about the slow boat to China. Well, this is a slow boat that is going nowhere. The same people who criticized the Republican budget, the same people who promise they would do better have instead done worse--a lot worse. We are long past the start of the fiscal year--about 6 weeks or so-- and still only two appropriations bills have been sent to the President, and that was just last week. If you want to find another Congress that was this tardy with spending bills, you would have to go back quite a while, I would imagine. In fact, I think you would have to go back through all of U.S. history. Remember all the talk we heard about fiscal discipline and controlling spending? Once again, you might be thinking that you ain't seen nothing yet, and you would be right again. Reminiscent of Everett Dirksen's words that a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money--the Democratic Party seems unconcerned about the difference between their proposed spending and the President's proposals over the next 5 years. After all, what is $20 billion or so among friends? We have even had times of gaming to pay for the spending to the tune of nearly $40 billion. So what is the record of the Democratic Party so far? Not too good. Are we surprised? The Democrats continue to insist that they support the troops. At the same time they are professing their support for the troops in Iraq, they are suggesting it is time to cut funding off for our military. With our backs against the wall, they have been keeping their foot to the pedal--the brake pedal--when it comes to providing our troops with emergency supplies they need--the body armor, the bullets, the mine-resistant vehicles. These things save lives, and we need to give our troops what they need when they need it so that they will come home safe and sound to their loved ones. This isn't all. There is a long list of promises made during the last election that haven't been kept. After questioning whether the war in Iraq made us safer, they refused to deal with the reforms we need to gather the intelligence we have to have to keep our people safe. I am strongly supportive of the rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. There is no question that our rights as Americans are sacred and they have to be respected. But if you ask the average American if terrorists deserve to be treated as citizens, if terrorists deserve to be treated as citizens and given those same rights, I think you will hear a decisive no. I believe our constituents know they have been kept safe for these past 6 years by this administration, and they want Congress to work together with the administration to continue that pattern of safety. I don't think they want us to work against each other. When the new Congress began about 11 months ago, we were promised a new attitude. We were told we would be walking arm in arm, working together to make this a better Nation for us all. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened either. Instead, we have seen a general unwillingness to work together to get things done. The ``gotcha'' politics. In fact, in 2007, at least 70 cloture motions have been filed by the majority so far. That is the same number of motions filed by the Republicans in the entire 109th Congress spanning 2 years. We are supposed to be here to conduct the people's business. Instead, more often than not, we are just getting the things done on cloture petitions, and that is not getting anything done at all. How do you get things done? We quit playing ``gotcha'' politics. We have been on the farm bill for 2 weeks, but there hasn't been a single amendment voted on. There hasn't been a single amendment allowed to be voted on. I did some checking. The farm bill has never passed without votes. I think we could have done this bill in a week. It came out of committee unanimously. So why not give the rest of the Senators a shot and move on? I have checked. We have always done about 25 amendments on the farm bill, in the history of the farm bill. A lot of them failed, but we have the right to have votes. Parliamentarily, we have been precluded from having votes, from offering amendments. Until that happens, there is not going to be any progress on the bill. As soon as it happens, there will be progress on the bill. So how about health care? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet, and I know you will not this year. You may not next year. Are you concerned about energy? Again, you ain't seen nothing yet. There has to be something done. How about training our workers for the good jobs that will come during the current global economy? Once again, unfortunately, you ain't seen nothing yet. I am bringing these sentiments to the attention of Congress that could do great things, and does do great things when it wants to, or probably more accurately when it needs to. It can come together with a snap of a finger in a time of crisis. Remember September 11? We came together not as Democrats or Republicans or Independents. We came together as Americans, and we swore we would work together to make this a better country. Unfortunately, that magic moment didn't last, and it wasn't long before we were back to our old ways. Sometimes it seems like partisanship and gridlock are just a way of life back here. It doesn't need to be. It doesn't have to be. If we work together and take the action on health care, education reform, and so much more of the Nation's needs, and look to get it done, when we go home to hold town meetings and meet with our constituents and we are asked what we are doing in Washington to make their lives better, ease their burdens, and make their futures brighter, we will be able to answer truthfully: You ain't seen nothing yet--not because we haven't done anything yet but because we have, and there is a lot more to come. And it can come. We agree on 80 percent of the issues. So if we just do the 80 percent instead of concentrating on the 20 percent we are not going to agree on--but I guess makes good political ads--we can get something done. As every football fan knows, it takes four quarters to make a football game. We are only coming up on halftime. There is plenty of time to put our heads together and develop a winning strategy--not for our parties but for the American people. At the close of the speech I referred to earlier, Ronald Reagan said that he hoped we would have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute the works that will make the world a little better for our having been here. That is our charge, our mission--to leave the world a little better than it was when we got here. It is a difficult mission, but it is one we can accomplish. We can accomplish it by joining and working together because the future is quite literally in our hands. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business without a time limit.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the former Secretary of Education.

Mr. ENZI. I hope the vote today will display the unanimity we have had while working on this bill. I congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts for the way he is running the committee. We have not just done hearings on things--hearings are a little more divisive than the other mechanism, which has been his morning coffees. In hearings, the two sides bring people to testify, and we kind of beat up on each other's witnesses. In the coffees he has held, we get to bring in a bunch of people and hear what they think. We have the interaction of one person who has had experience, and he talks to another person who has had experience, and they talk about how the two experiences might come together. That has been helpful on this bill, as well as the other ones, the bookends I mentioned. This being the first part of the bookend, and the next one we will be working on is No Child Left Behind. We have already done the Higher Education Act on this side. I look forward to conferencing that and getting on to the Workforce Investment Act, which passed this body twice already but never has been conferenced. Our work is still cut out for us, but this is a day to celebrate the good work done on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure and an honor to get to work on this bill and to work with people on both sides of the aisle. You can see the unanimity from the Republican side and the Democratic side in making sure the bill came to pass. As I mentioned before, we have had a lot of false starts trying to get Head Start done. This time, we have gotten through the process. Today, we will have a positive vote and send it to the President for signature. I think you can tell from the debate that it has been a very positive process. The only distinction appears to be the few comments we have had about the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I don't want to get into that issue because it will take a long time to discuss it. I ask unanimous consent to have the Wall Street Journal article from today called ``Return to Spender'' printed in the Record to counter some of the things talked about. It wasn't Head Start that he vetoed; it was the entire Labor-HHS budget.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ENZI. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, who has always played a tremendous role in this piece of work with his staff person Glee Smith, and he brings with him a world of knowledge from Georgia where he served as the chief school official there. They set some precedent-setting things at all levels of education while he was doing that, and he did it in conjunction with former Senator Zell Miller, who was Governor at that time. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for that excellent recap of what has taken us months, in fact, years to get done. I am pleased after many years of false starts, we have finally reached agreement on Head Start reauthorization. This conference agreement is a bipartisan, bicameral effort that focuses on improving the lives of low-income children and their families. We need to ensure that children, regardless of their circumstances, have the opportunity to get the preparation they need to enter school ready to learn and be successful. The Head Start Program was established in 1965 as part of the war on poverty to level the playing field for low-income children. The purpose of the program was, and remains, to provide educational and other developmental services to children in very low income families. It recognizes that children do not start school with the same set of experiences or knowledge. Head Start programs provide low-income children with a solid base of experiences and knowledge that enables them to start their elementary school experience on par with their more affluent peers. Since its creation, Head Start has been a comprehensive, early childhood development program that provides educational, health, nutritional, social, and other services to low-income, preschool-aged children and their families. Head Start currently provides services to over 900,000 children and their families through a network of over 1,600 public and private agencies. This program also recognizes the important role that families play in a child's development and encourages their regular participation in the program. I do thank Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller for their commitment to working together on a bipartisan basis. That commitment has resulted in a conference report that meets the needs of children and families who participate in Head Start programs throughout our Nation. I also thank my other colleagues, particularly Senators Alexander and Dodd, and Congressmen McKeon, Kildee, and Castle, for their fine work and dedication to this important legislation. The conference agreement before us today builds off legislation we developed last Congress when I was chairman of the HELP Committee. Senator Kennedy agreed to use that legislation as the base for this year's bill to build on the bipartisan support it had received. Senator Kennedy and I understand that to get anything done, especially in the Senate, you have to have bipartisan support. Years ago, I established an ``80-percent rule'' to help guide my work in committee and on the Senate floor. It means that 80 percent of what Congress works on we agree to. The other 20 percent is the stuff we may never agree on. But that is what always seems to get the attention. I do think we do our best work when we focus on the 80 percent. Legislation seems to move more quickly when we work together in a bipartisan way. I am pretty certain people in Massachusetts are cringing, and people in Wyoming are cringing and saying: Oh, no, Kennedy and Enzi are doing it again. But that is the way things get done, and we have quite a track record of doing things that wind up pretty unanimous on both sides of the Capitol because they figure with our two backgrounds it has to be reasonable or we will not agree. That is exactly how it works out. So this bill probably will not make headlines, and it is not the most sensational sound bite. However, this is work Congress can and must do to improve the lives of children and families across America. Today, with the passage of the Head Start conference report, we begin to fulfill this obligation. But our work is far from done. This is just the first in a number of education and training bills we have to complete this Congress. With the reauthorization of the Head Start Act, the first bookend is in place. I hope we can continue to work together on legislation to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, the Higher Education Act, and the Workforce Investment Act. These four bills represent the continuum of education and workforce training legislation supported by the Federal Government--with Head Start as one bookend and the Workforce Investment Act as the other. These acts support programs from preschool, through elementary and high school, into postsecondary education and the workforce, and are critical to maintaining our global competitiveness. We cannot afford to let those programs fall victim to election year politics. I am pleased the House Education and Labor Committee has moved forward with the markup of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It is my hope we can continue this momentum and move into a conference on that important legislation in the very near future. Head Start provides the building blocks children need for success later in life. The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 before us today helps ensure that children in Head Start programs will be better prepared to enter school with the skills necessary to succeed. We have always worked hard to improve and strengthen this act because we believe in the future success of all children. I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions in this conference report. The conference agreement includes important changes related to the evaluation and review of grantees. We have taken steps to increase the quality of Head Start, and there is now greater clarity for grantees as to what constitutes a program deficiency. The roles of governing body and policy councils have been clarified and strengthened, while also preserving the important role of parents. It is absolutely necessary and vital that a single entity, the governing body, has fiscal and legal control of the Federal grant dollars. That said, we maintain the equally vital and necessary role of the policy councils in setting program priorities, classroom activities, and classroom personnel changes. We believe this will help ensure the continued integrity of the Head Start Program for years to come. Parents are their children's first teachers. It is vital we continue to encourage and strengthen the role parents play in Head Start programs. This conference agreement increases the presence of parents in Head Start programs. It strengthens services for families, and it provides training and development opportunities for parents who serve on policy councils and governing boards. Today we are taking the final legislative step toward a comprehensive and bipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start Program. As we take this step to reauthorize Head Start, it is important we review the effectiveness and need for the 57 other early childhood and preschool programs currently receiving Federal support. Many of those programs are programs in name only. Others are ineffective and fail to provide the services children need to be ready for school. We have to direct funds to programs that have been shown to be effective at preparing children for success in elementary school. Head Start is a successful program that deserves our continued support. This support should not be diluted by competing programs or the creation of new programs. I again wish to thank all the members of both committees, in particular Senators Kennedy, Alexander, Isakson and Dodd, and Congressmen Miller, McKeon, Kildee, and Castle, for getting this done. I also thank all of the staff who worked to complete this reauthorization. Many of them have been working toward this day since early January. In particular, I would like to thank the following staff for Congressman Miller: Ruth Friedman, Lamont Ivey, Denise Forte, and Stephanie Moore; for Congressman McKeon: Kirsten Duncan, James Bergeron, and Susan Ross; for Congressman Kildee: Lloyd Horwich; for Congressman Castle: Jessica Gross; for Senator Kennedy: Roberto Rodriguez, Carmel Martin, and David Johns--I would like to mention how well Senator Kennedy's staff and my staff have been able to work together on all of the issues--for Senator Isakson: Glee Smith; for Senator Alexander: David Cleary and Sarah Rittling; and for Senator Dodd: Catherine Hildum, and former staffer Sharon Lewis. For my staff, I want to be sure to thank Lindsay Hunsicker, who has done a marvelous job of working and understanding and providing some creativity in the decisions that had to be made to get here; Beth Buehlmann, who oversees all of these education issues and is making sure they are moving forward in a bipartisan way; and Ilyse Schuman, who is the legal brains behind the drafting and decisions for my team; Katherine McGuire, who heads up the team as staff director; and, of course, Kelly Hastings. Passage of this conference report will ensure that low-income children are prepared not only for success in school but, most importantly, for later success in life. I look forward to getting this conference report to President Bush for his signature as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the conference report to H.R. 3222, the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. This Defense bill, which I strongly support, unfortunately includes a so-called ``continuing resolution'' which is full of earmarks. I am extremely disappointed that our troops must continue to pay the price for political posturing and the inclusion of funding for pet programs in a must-pass military funding bill. Our troops are being used to carry pork projects and this is a text book example of irresponsible legislating. Let's be clear about what a continuing resolution is. This continuing resolution provides stopgap funding for existing Federal programs at current or reduced fiscal year levels because the majority couldn't get its appropriations bills completed by the beginning of a new fiscal year. What we should be considering is a straight CR: no earmarks, no plus ups, no new ``emergency'' spending. This bill has it all. It has a $3 million earmark for a golf center--an expense clearly not linked to our national defense. There is even $800,000 to study the effects of sound on marine mammals. This is a dangerous way to operate. This Congress has already shown it has zero fiscal discipline. Business as usual is bad enough, but if we, the U.S. Senate, concede on the definition of a CR, this kind of unconscionable spending will be done forever. It will be standard operating procedure. That is not what the American people want. I want to make very clear my strong support for the members of our Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every day. I have the greatest admiration for all of them for their commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national security. They are all true heroes and they are the ones who are doing the heavy lifting and making great sacrifices in our country's name so that we might continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are faced tonight with a vote on a bill that our troops need, but the troops are not the focus of this conference report. This political tactic does our troops and all Americans who want good government, a disservice. I want to provide our troops with the funding and the resources they need to be successful in all their objectives. I want the Senate to consider the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act on its merit. Legislating isn't a barter system, or at least it shouldn't be. The men and women of our armed services deserve better than having the funding they need to do their job being used in a horse-trading scheme so a Member of Congress can get funding for his or her own special cause. There is more than $50 million worth of projects being slipped in this so-called CR. We are moving quickly toward midnight. I guess that's a fitting time to vote on a bill laden with pork slipped in under the cover of darkness. The people of the United States deserve better.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to address the pending legislation, the conference report for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations legislation, which has been combined with the Fiscal Year 2008 Military Construction VA appropriations legislation. I encourage my colleagues to cut right to the chase. Packaging these bills together is an effort to force President Bush to sign the Labor- HHS appropriations bill, which he opposes and will veto, by combining it with a Military Construction Veterans funding bill that cleared the Senate with almost unanimous consent. We ought to be working to write funding bills that are acceptable on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and debating these conference reports separately. Instead what we are seeing is 2008 election year politicking at work. I voted against the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor because of the overall spending level, which was roughly $9 billion over the administration's request. Now I understand that this portion of the conference report grew by an additional $840 million beyond what the Senate passed. The level of spending in this title of the conference report is excessive and will add to the huge financial burden we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. So while this legislation is well intentioned, I cannot support it. Nine billion dollars may not seem like much money in the context of a budget that totals more than $2 trillion. But the cumulative effect of excessive spending will total in the tens of billions in any given year unless we act to maintain some form of fiscal discipline. Some of the additional spending, particularly related to education, I support--but the vote being cast today is in relation to the entire $151 billion discretionary package, which on the whole I do not believe should be approved. The military--veterans title of this package first passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 1. I supported this bill on the floor, which was $4 billion over the administration's request, because I agree with the vast majority of the policies and support the increased commitment to our Nation's veterans during a time of war. I fully support this portion of the conference report--and my understanding is that if the Congress presented this title to the administration as a free-standing bill, the President would sign the legislation. So what we are seeing on the floor of the Senate here today is the majority party's willingness to use whatever means necessary to get their way on excessive domestic spending--even if it means stalling a bill that would provide immediate resources to our Nation's veterans. Rather than working for the best interests of our veterans, they are being used for political theater. That, to me, is shockingly bad judgment. I understand that a point of order lies against this package for violating Senate rule XXVIII, and that it will be raised this afternoon. I will vote to sustain the point of order because the end result could be President Bush receiving the Labor-HHS title and the military-veterans title as free-standing packages. Thus the military- veterans package would be signed and needed funds for our veterans will be available. My understanding is that, for a variety of reasons, the President will veto the Labor-HHS title. The administration has been vocal about their concerns for some time, so this should not come as a surprise to my colleagues. The Senate has been on notice. I tried to improve the Labor-HHS title during the floor debate by offering an amendment dealing with the Ryan White HIV/AIDS funding formula. My amendment was accepted by a rollcall vote of 65 to 28, but dropped during the conference process. My amendment simply ensures that the current Ryan White funding formulas would not be altered by this appropriations bill, neutering a provision in the underlying House bill that changes the formula that was unanimously agreed to in the Senate just last year. We agreed the money would follow the patients. The conference report will revert to waiting lines, while providing San Francisco a funding increase--even though they receive money in part for people who are already dead. Last December, the House and Senate passed by a overwhelming majority authorization legislation for Ryan White. Our recent revisions to Ryan White ensured that no large city lost more than 5 percent of its formula funding from the previous fiscal year. In addition to the formula funding, cities sometimes receive additional supplemental funds to deal with severe need. To ensure more stability, we reduced that supplemental funding--from 50 percent of the total to one-third of the total appropriations--to provide additional formula funding. The House provision I mentioned, which Senator Feinstein stated on the Senate floor was a ``Pelosi fix,'' funnels $9.4 million away from the current Ryan White Fiscal Year 2008 formulas so that 11 cities could benefit from yet another hold harmless provision for Fiscal Year 2007. This new, retroactive hold harmless provision is added on top of the hold harmless provisions under the current Ryan White funding formulas. While some have called this a stop-loss, it is still a change to the funding formulas because it alters how the appropriations dollars would be directed to cities receiving Ryan White funds. This is a retroactive application of the stop-loss, applying to 2007 grant awards, not 2008 grant awards. Quite frankly, this earmark ensures that 11 cities arbitrarily receive additional funds for Fiscal Year 2007 at the expense of 45 other cities. Even though my amendment was supported by a majority of Senate conferees, it was dropped in the conference negotiations. Because no amendments were allowed during the conference meeting, there was no chance for all conferees to take an up-or-down vote. Is this democracy at its best? Our constituents deserve a better, more fair process. As I said previously during the Labor-HHS floor debate, I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues on a compromise product that can garner support from both the legislative as well as the executive branch of our Government. It is unfortunate that we have to waste yet another week on this political exercise, rather than using that time to write a quality compromise product that can actually become the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in a little over 2 hours, we are going to be having two votes on this floor. Under rules of the Senate, technically, the time is reserved for the debate on that, so I thought I ought to come to the floor and assure people that vote isn't going to be on the Attorney General and it is not going to be on the farm bill. It is going to be about health. I thought somebody probably ought to come and talk a little about health, so I am going to do that. Yesterday, we voted to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3963, which is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or what folks on Capitol Hill are calling SCHIP. Now, I spoke on the floor last night about how this so-called new bill isn't new at all. It is about the same old flawed plan, only with new rhetoric. I had a lot of hope for what was going to happen because both sides were talking. They were looking at some of the proposals I and others had made, and I even thought the House was going to have those included in their bill. When it went to the floor, it turned out to be kind of the same old thing again, with new sound bites and political posturing. That isn't what it is supposed to be about. We are supposed to be making decisions on health for the children of this country and, hopefully, for every American. But we choose to make political points, which holds up the system and doesn't get the job done. With those new sound bites and political posturing, we are not ensuring that low-income children have the health care they need. We owe it to these children to work with the President to reauthorize this critical program in a way that gets every single low-income child who needs insurance. This body hasn't been able to do that, and we have been working on this bill for many months. I know if it were not for politics, this bill would have been done weeks ago. Actually, it would have been done months ago. The longer we work on this issue, the more political it becomes, to the point where we don't even debate it any more. We wait for the votes to roll around and we talk about Attorneys General and farm bills and the war and we avoid the issue we ought to be talking about, which is how to come together to take care of children's health. Now, I worry that some Members in this Chamber have lost sight of the goal, and that goal was making sure all low-income children in this country have health care. The press has been reporting, and some Members of this body have claimed, all concerns were addressed in the last version of the bill that the House voted on last week--the one that is before us now--but that is not correct. The concerns weren't addressed. We have to put low-income kids first, and this bill doesn't do that. Now, I detailed in my speech last night the concerns I have with this bill. I also mentioned I am a cosponsor of the Kids First Act, S. 2152, the bill that would provide Federal funding for children in need and require that the money actually be spent on children from families with lower incomes. This bill is a good step in the direction of compromise, and I hope the majority will see that and start working with the minority to pass something the President can sign, rather than continuing to play politics. I would suggest the politics haven't worked. I noticed when it went to the floor on the House side there were more people opposed to this version than there were to the previous version. I noticed on the cloture vote there were more people opposed to this version than there were to the last version. That doesn't sound like progress to me; that sounds like more of the same, where it allows people to run political ads one way or the other against people. That is not what we are supposed to be about. SCHIP is important, and I wish to be crystal clear about my position: I support the SCHIP program 1,000 percent; that is, the SCHIP program we can have, not the one that one side or the other is trying to force down the throat saying we are doing it for kids. But more than that, it is important this body be thinking bigger. We need to think bigger about fixing the entire health care system and helping all Americans. I do have a bill that does just that. It is not my bill; it is our bill. I spent months collecting ideas from both sides of the aisle. I have looked at every health care provision that anybody has to see if there is not some common ground--and there is. There is. I don't have everything in this because I found that legislation works best if it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. You have to take steps to get from here to there. But if you take steps and you get started with a step, you can actually wind up at your destination. So I put together a bill on behalf of everybody which can do just that--one part of it or all of it; it doesn't matter. For the next few minutes, I would like to explain my plan to this body. When our constituents look off to the distance, they do see dark clouds and an explosion of health care costs, and they see it rapidly drifting across the country. I know this from the town meetings I have been having. I mention that again. Every day many of our constituents are going to jobs they do not like, but they are afraid that if they change, the change in employment will mean their loved ones will lose their health insurance and they will face a future without the protection a good policy affords. They cannot change from one job to another because a family member would have preexisting conditions that would not be covered at the next one. That is not fair. How do I know these things are happening? I know because I go home almost every weekend. I travel around Wyoming. It is a very big State. I hope all of you will take a look at that. It has a very small population. But I get to talk to almost all of my constituents. I do that partly at town meetings and partly at individual meetings. I also read their letters. I listen to them at all kinds of events when I am back home. I know they are telling me these things. I can also tell that they are telling me the same things. Why aren't we listening? Why are we taking so much time to finally do something about it? When we are home, one thing we all like to do is visit our local video store. They have a lot of movies we can listen to and watch in the quiet and comfort of our own home. There are different sections for each category, and we can help ourselves to the latest in action or drama or comedy. If health care were a new release and you wanted to check it out at your local video store, you certainly wouldn't find it under ``action'' because there hasn't been any. You wouldn't find it under ``comedy'' either, because there is more tragedy than there is comedy in this whole thing. Most likely you would find it under ``horror,'' ``science fiction,'' or ``fantasy.'' Unfortunately, I am not talking about movies and the land of make-believe; I am talking about real life and the need for real action to solve real problems. Take the fact that health care is one of the biggest concerns of every American. Combine that with the fact that those who were elected and are now in charge have refused to put forth for debate a substantial proposal that has a real shot at working. There is already talk among top Democrats that next year will be the health care year. It is funny how it always seems to be that when Congress is faced with a heavy lift, it starts talking about next year--as if that is the present tense. What do you have? You have the answer to why Congress's approval ratings are so low. The solution is clear: The best way to solve sagging poll numbers is to actually do something, stop playing around on the fringe of the issue and get right to the heart of the matter. Our friends on the other side of the aisle know what they should do, but what are they waiting for? We need to do what the American people say they want us most to do. And then--this is the real rub--they want us to work together and avoid the partisan fear that we might have to share the credit. I have always believed you can get anything done if you don't care who gets the credit, and that is the path we ought to be taking. We have a real opportunity to do something now, to get legislation passed that will mean real solutions for our constituents. I have collected this plan. Over the next few months, I will share each step with my colleagues, as I have been doing, and would remind you that the longest journey in the world begins with a single step, and I am willing to take the first ones. If anyone has a better idea, I am more than willing to put our ideas together until we have something we can all accept. I know from other pieces of legislation that I have worked on that is the only way to get something done. We can agree on a lot. We can agree on about 80 percent of all of the issues. Health care is one of the issues on which we can agree. I found on any particular issue you can usually agree on 80 percent of it. Eighty percent would be a lot more than what we have now. It is that pesky 20 percent that always proves to be a problem. Sometimes you get things done by what you leave out. When I mention 10 steps that would get us to this goal--if we only do 8 of them, it is still a lot of health care for people. If we do all 10 of them, it is a solution. If we concentrate on that 80 percent, we can get something done right away to make our health care system better, safer, more efficient, and less expensive. We owe it to our mothers, fathers, sisters, children everywhere to take those steps. One by one, we can get where we need to be. I think we have all had enough of the ``rush and whine'' bottle of legislating, the ones who rush out from a meeting to hold a press conference so they can whine about a problem. That approach generates a lot of noise, but it has never resulted in action. We need to work together, the majority and the minority, to build a legacy our children and our grandchildren will benefit from, a fair and effective health care system that will ensure more Americans have access to the health care they need to lead full and productive lives and that those who have it will not lose it. Forget there is an election coming up for just a few seconds. That, technically, is next November, not this November. That should give us a little bit of time to work on something. But I do know that election for some of us is a barrier to progress. Let's not let it be that way. There is plenty of room for agreement. We do not need a massive bill, just a genuine effort to work together. We do not need a new big Government bureaucracy. We do not need to bankrupt the country. It is not rocket science. We can do it a single step at a time, and I am discouraged that those in charge have not put a single step into play. But I am hopeful that this call to arms--actually, it is a call to work together as comrades in arms--will remind us all that we need to do something about this issue now. Election year politicking should not stand in the way of real reform for health care. There is much we can do today that will give people the confidence they need in their ability to face the challenges of tomorrow. What we can do right now can help people improve their health coverage for themselves and their families. All I ask is that you walk with me as we take the steps that are needed to solve this problem. I call it a 10-step approach, and it would bring clarity to our health insurance maze and put the focus where it belongs--on patients. Enacting one of the 10 steps would keep our health insurance system strong and off life support for awhile. The first step gives small businesses greater purchasing power to reduce the costs of insurance plans. Those of you who know me will recognize how central this would have to be to any health care reform proposal of mine. The Chair and I have worked together to bring together an idea that had failed for 12 years because people would not compromise. We worked with all of the stakeholders--which are the providers and the patients and the insurance companies and the insurance commissioners and anybody else with an interest in insurance--and we put together a plan that would effectively allow small businesses to work across State lines to combine to get a big enough pool that they could effectively negotiate with the insurance companies. That still needs to be done. It is still a key to getting more people insured and seeing that people who have insurance get to keep their insurance. In administrative costs alone, it could drive the price down by 23 percent. That is a huge savings for small businesses. It would bring many small businesses back into the market. We need to do that. A second step focuses our investment on health information technology to cut costs and to save lives. Mr. President, 100,000 Americans die every year because of medical errors that result from messy handwriting and mixups with drugs and treatment. The Senate needs real leadership to bring the health industry into the 21st century. Electronic access to health records could save billions of dollars and save thousands of lives. People's health records should travel with them so they can share them with their doctors. Informed decisions are better decisions, and patient access to their records can help their doctors do a better job of making sure the patients get the care they need without duplicate testing. How many people have been to the doctor's office and when you get there, what they do is hand you a clipboard and they say: Write down everything you can remember about your health. I used to be able to remember a lot more about my health than I can because I had more of it. But it would really be helpful just to have a little card I can hand them and say: Here, swipe that through your computer, and I will put in a code that will release some of the information. And when I get a test done at a hospital and then go to the doctor, the doctor won't say: It hasn't gotten here yet, so we are going to have to run the test again. Some of those test are $5,000, $10,000--duplicative. But it will be on the little card, you have it right there, you have the information, and you can use it. The Rand Corporation estimates those duplicative tests are costing us $140 billion a year. That is real money, in my book. So an electronic record would go a long way toward eliminating the problems caused by a prescription that can't be read or a drug interaction that could be dangerous or duplicative tests. The next step would be to correct a flawed Tax Code to make it easier for working Americans to buy health insurance. Jobs don't need health insurance; people need health insurance. Members of American families who are not insured through their employers should have the same access to care. They should have the same access to the Tax Code. We want health care fairness, even if you don't work for a big company. We could do that. Other steps will fix the medical justice system to cut down on the junk lawsuits that are driving up health care costs. The medical liability system in this country does not work the way it should. The 10 steps would include a mechanism to promote real medical justice reform that will focus on helping both patients and doctors, not trial lawyers. We want medical justice so the people who are injured get paid quickly and fairly, so we are not spending more in preventing lawsuits than we are in preventing illnesses. I have to say, Senator Baucus has been working with me on that bill. We have introduced a bill that can do exactly that. It will be bipartisan. It can be more bipartisan. We need more people to help out. Americans should not have to live in fear that if they change jobs they will lose health insurance. This 10-step bill will give them security in their health insurance. When you change jobs, you will be able to take your health care with you. You will not have to worry about the insurance company saying: That already existed before you bought our insurance, so that is going to be a surprise discovery, that it was a previous ailment, and we are not going to cover it. We don't want that to happen. The system we have today is not about patients and making them healthy. We need to put the focus back on health care, not sick care. We also need to set our sights on prevention. Ben Franklin said it best: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Those are a few of the things we can do now. I hope you will check out my Web site, where I have a lot more detail on this plan that I have collected from everybody, everybody who is interested in it. Check out that Web site and join me in getting something done in health care for every American. It is not a big concept, but it can be a big improvement. I encourage others to bring their ideas out for discussion. I never consider anything I have collected or worked on to be the final answer. The way I get legislation done around here is to listen to all of the different proposals, see what works together, and out of that usually springs some surprise inventions, new ways of doing it that reach the goal we are looking at. That is where we are trying to go. Our constituents are not asking for more politicking. They consider health to be a real problem. They want a real answer, so we can bring the focus back to health care and not ``sick'' care. We all know what we should be doing in our own lives to help prevent chronic illness so we can stay strong and healthy. When it comes to health care, it is clear there is a lot that should be happening but is not. We need to replace those ``shoulds'' with a simple word ``will.'' We need to replace the call to do something from ``next year'' to ``now.'' Those changes should happen, and we can make them happen. It is a simple thing. We just need the will to do it. We need to take the politics out of it. I know this is a political body, but we have done much in the past that was not based on politics. It was based on solutions for America. And that is the only way the people of this country are going to have confidence in Congress again. We can do it. We can do it one step at a time but only if we work together. We have done it. We did it on the mine safety bill a little over a year ago. It used to take about 6 years to get a bill through. We did it in 6 weeks because people listened, found out what the problem was, and put down solutions. No, it did not solve every problem, but at least it is 80 percent better than it was. Eighty percent is better than nothing. We can reach solutions but only if we listen to each other, find the 80 percent, and be willing to throw out the other 20 percent. I thought we were at that point on SCHIP. I was disappointed that we went pretty much back to the same old story again because it evidently makes good ads because, as I mentioned before, the number in the House who voted for it was fewer, and the number of people in the Senate who voted for it was fewer. So we are not there. I hope we do something that gets us there, not just for the children but for everybody. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are in the 30 hours of postcloture on the motion to proceed on SCHIP. Am I correct?

Mr. ENZI. I thought it might be a good idea for somebody to actually talk about that. To quote from Shakespeare: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But the so-called new SCHIP plan is essentially the same as the old one, and it still stinks. I rise today to speak about the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or what people on Capitol Hill are calling SCHIP. SCHIP was created by a Republican Congress in 1997 to help low-income kids get health insurance. The goal of the program is to help kids who do not qualify for Medicaid but also cannot afford to get health insurance on their own, receive the care they need. This program was temporarily extended until November 16, 2007, which is coming up shortly. I am here today to speak about how important it is for Congress to work with the President to reauthorize this critical program in a way that gets every single low-income child who needs insurance insured. If it were not for politics, this would have been solved last week. It would have been solved last month. We have been working on this issue in the Senate for a few months now. And the longer we work on it, the more political it becomes. I worried that some Members in this Chamber have lost sight of the goal: making sure all the low-income children in this country have health care. The press has been reporting that Members of the body have claimed that all the concerns were addressed in the last version of the bill the House voted on last week. That is not correct. The concerns were not addressed. This so-called new bill still fails to put low-income children first by gutting the administration's requirement to enroll at least 95 percent of the kids below 200 percent of poverty before expanding the program to cover the higher income population. This so-called new bill still expands the Children's Health Insurance Program to higher income families by using income disregards, which is clarifying certain expenses so they do not count toward income. How much are we going to let people exclude and still consider them poor? When the House debated this bill last week, Representative Dingell, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, participated in the colloquy with Representative Burgess and explained how the income disregard loophole works. What this means in plain English is, the majority party knows there is a provision in the bill that could lead to children from families earning over $100,000 going into Government health care. This is exactly what I mean when I say we have lost focus when it comes to this bill. This program is intended to help low-income kids, not kids in families earning as much as $100,000 a year. The so-called new bill still allows the enrollment of adults, though the bill does transition childless adults off the SCHIP into Medicaid. Parents still receive SCHIP coverage. The so-called new bill still removes 2 million individuals from private coverage and puts them on Government-run health care at the taxpayer's expense. Congress needs to ensure this program is paying for health insurance for kids who do not currently have health insurance, not switching kids from private insurance to Government-run health insurance. We need to help all Americans get health insurance, but there are better, more efficient ways than spoiling a good children's plan. I have introduced a first-class, 10-step plan that would help us achieve the goal of comprehensive health care reform for every American. Any one of those steps would improve the situation for almost all Americans. All 10 steps would improve it for every American. But to get back to what is wrong with this new bill, the so-called new bill still expands SCHIP to illegal immigrants by weakening citizenship verification requirements. Let me repeat that. This so- called new bill still expands the SCHIP program to illegal immigrants by weakening citizenship verification requirements. Now, the so-called new bill still is not paid for. It is relying on a budget trick to get around the budget rule. I am the only accountant in the Senate. I am sure there are others who can count. There are documents that show this information, but this so-called new bill still includes a tobacco tax increase, and the proposed tax hike is highly regressive, with much of the tax burden being shouldered by low-income taxpayers. Now, I am not a fan of tobacco. I have spoken on this floor many times about why I am so adamantly against tobacco usage. But using a tobacco tax to pay for children's health insurance does not make sense because you have to keep the program funding level stable in the future, and that would require 22 million more smokers. We are going to help children's health by talking 22 million more people into smoking and keeping the ones who are smoking now from quitting? It does not sound like a health care plan to me. The so-called new bill still contains district-specific earmarks. Again, we know we have lost focus on children's health insurance when the bill contains earmarks for certain districts. Clearly, the so- called new bill has not changed that much from the previous bill. We have to put low-income kids first, and this bill does not do that. I have cosponsored the Kids First Act, S. 2152. The bill would provide Federal funding for children in need and require the money actually be spent on children from families with lower incomes. This bill is a good step in the direction of the compromise, and I hope the majority will see that and start working with the minority to pass something the President can sign rather than putting the kids in jeopardy by continuing to play politics. I would be remiss if I did not mention what a great job my home State of Wyoming is doing in the way that they are administering SCHIP. Wyoming first implemented its SCHIP program, called Kid Care CHIP, in Wyoming in 1999. In 2003, Wyoming formed a public-private partnership with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Wyoming and Delta Dental of Wyoming to provide health, vision, and dental benefits to nearly 6,000 kids in Wyoming. That is a pretty significant part of our population. Wyoming is the least populated State in the Nation. These partnerships have made Kid Care CHIP a very successful program in Wyoming. All children enrolled in the program receive a wide range of benefits, including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, lab and x ray services, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse services, not to mention dental and vision services. Families share in the cost of the children's health care by paying copayments for a portion of the care provided. These copays are capped at $200 a year per family--not per child, per family. Wyoming is also engaged in an outreach campaign targeted to find and enroll the additional 6,000 kids who are eligible for the Kid Care CHIP but are not enrolled. I am proud of the great job Wyoming is doing in implementing its program. I am proud to say that even if the program were not reauthorized, Wyoming has enough money to run its program for another year because folks there know how to budget and plan. I sure hope it does not come to that. We need to get it extended. We need to get it extended right now. I hope Congress will be able to set the politics aside and put the kids first. We have a job to do for all the kids in the States that are not as fiscally responsible as Wyoming. They will start running out of money, so we owe it to them to work across the aisle and with the President and get a bill signed into law. I will cover this some more tomorrow when more have spoken and there are some arguments to counter. There is a way that we can come to a compromise and arrive at a solution. In fact, some of the negotiations I was involved with last week I thought had been reached. And then when I saw the bill that was voted out by the House, I saw a little recidivism there. I thought we had done better than that. But, obviously, we had not. Obviously, we need to keep working. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the present time, the last numbers that I saw, Congress's approval rating was 12 percent. There is a reason for that. We have been nibbling around the edges on a lot of things, and we have been doing earmarks. I have an amendment that deals with one of the most egregious earmarks I have seen. Less than a year ago we passed a bill in this body unanimously, that the House then passed unanimously, that addressed the Ryan White AIDS program, and it included transparency, it included accountability, and it included a change in the formula. The change in the formula gave some protection to those who have had a declining population, but it allowed the money to follow the people who had the problem. Today, in this bill, there is an earmark that provides for money now to go to people who may no longer even exist--people who are dead. It is a way that they are trying to change the authorization process we went through so meticulously, so unanimously, in such a way that it undoes it in an appropriations bill. We shouldn't be changing law in an appropriations bill. We especially shouldn't be changing law for a specific area of the country in an appropriations bill. That is why I bring this amendment. I want to discuss the Ryan White program and the need to ensure that this Labor-HHS bill does not undo our recent work. Last December, after months of negotiations, the House and the Senate passed a new 3-year Ryan White reauthorization. Most importantly, we ensured that those new formulas focused on the lifesaving treatment by including individuals with HIV, not just AIDS. One of the key items that delayed this reauthorization for months was the careful negotiations surrounding the funding formulas. In that bipartisan, bicameral agreement, we were very clear about the implications of those new formula changes. We provided GAO data runs that were nearly identical to how the funding has been distributed. I hope everybody takes a look at those GAO data runs. Those funding formulas also included hold-harmless provisions to ensure the formula funding would not decrease by more than 5 percent from the previous year. While I would have preferred no hold-harmless provisions or ones that allowed for more dramatic fluctuations so the money could follow the HIV-infected person, that was what we agreed upon a few short months ago. We didn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes; we provided clear information about the implications about those funding formulas. Now, with one simple pen stroke, the House majority would like to undo all of those carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral compromises and insert a new hold-harmless provision with little thought to how this change will affect others. I am pleased to note that the Senate did not include this egregious provision, and I hope today the Senate will go on record for opposing doing so. What is even more ridiculous is that this provision primarily benefits San Francisco, a city that continues to receive funding to care for dead people. San Francisco received two-thirds of the $9 million available, racking up $6 million of new dollars. All the while, nearly every other city would have reduced funding just so San Francisco can receive more riches. That additional $6 million is not based on the number of people they are treating or on how many new cases they have. As a hold-harmless provision, it is related to what that city has received before. As GAO noted in the report last month, even within their current funding, they are receiving money for people who have died. Let me repeat that. GAO, the Government Accountability Office, confirmed that San Francisco currently receives funding under Ryan White for dead people. That is without this additional $6 million earmark. Now, I don't know about my colleagues, but I find this a little reprehensible. Where I come from, that is called cheating. This is patently unfair to those cities and States that are striving to come up with the moneys for basic HIV/AIDS treatment. House Democrats reneged on a bipartisan, bicameral solution and are trying to slide this authorizing legislation into an appropriations bill, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed. I object to this provision and the implications of it. Rather than providing nearly $10 million to help those cities that don't need it, why aren't we providing funds to those cities with large numbers of people with HIV? So I offer my amendment to Labor-HHS, Enzi amendment No. 3437. This amendment is quite simple. It states that the Labor-HHS bill cannot be used to undo all of the work we did on Ryan White. We should not be diverting key funds from cities with rising HIV cases to go to San Francisco--a city that is still receiving funds for treating people who have already died from AIDS. If you support keeping people alive, I believe you should also support my amendment. We did last December. We should again. We need to keep it on track to take care of the problem. I yield some time to my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, such time as he would like.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, before we passed the legislation, there were waiting lines in many of the States in this country, lines of people waiting to get treatment and care for AIDS. I am pleased to let you know there are no waiting lines today. No waiting lines anywhere--not in San Francisco, not in Connecticut, not in New Jersey or in New York. There has been a cut. The cut is guaranteed to be no more than 5 percent under the formula. Now, there has always been supplemental money besides the formula. We did not guarantee the supplemental money. The supplemental money was never guaranteed. And if there are larger cuts, it comes out of the supplemental money, not the formula. So I certainly hope we don't change the formula under the appropriations bill instead of through the proper process, which is authorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services in North Carolina with some very pertinent quotes.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve my remaining time.