Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, throughout the history of our Nation, generations of American scientists have looked for ways to improve the human condition and address the problem of disease and the afflictions of old age. Working in labs either spartan or spacious, they have toiled together over the years to find cures for the health conditions that continue to plague mankind. As they conducted their research, each scientist's work built on the discoveries that preceded it, and the results they achieved over the years have enabled us to live longer, healthier, more productive lives. The list of medical miracles and marvels that have come from their work has made the phrase ``American ingenuity'' known around the world for the creativity it represents and the results it has so often provided. From time to time, however, there is a breakthrough--or possible breakthrough--in medical science that has the potential to revolutionize not only our ability to diagnose or treat an affliction but our basic understanding of how the human body operates. When that occurs, a debate ensues as society attempts to evaluate the new procedure's potential to address the diseases that threaten our health as well as the ethics of putting the new procedures into practice. Such a possible breakthrough is stem cell research. At present, its promise and potential for changing the way we view health and disease seems limitless. In theory, stem cells may be capable of doing everything we can possibly imagine--and more. Unfortunately, there is often a wide gap between what is possible in theory and what is practical and possible in the real world. What the future of stem cells will be no one knows for certain. Still, the possibilities are more than intriguing and certainly worth an in-depth look. The research that has been conducted into stem cells so far has been so exciting because of the very nature of these cells. Stem cells have the capacity to renew themselves and then become specialized cells. Most of the cells that are in the body are created and committed to performing a specific function. A stem cell remains ``on the fence,'' however, uncommitted until it is given a signal by the body to develop into a specialized cell. That ability to change and become a cell that can be used almost anywhere in the body has fascinated scientists who are studying the ability of the body to repair itself through the use of using these ``uncommitted'' cells. We have all heard the saying--you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. In this case, however, you really do need a strong background in science to understand fully the specifics of stem cell research and its implications for the future. Fortunately, we are not here to predict the impact stem cells will have on our health care system in the years to come. We are here to make a determination as to the wisdom of using taxpayer dollars to finance additional work in this area--and then pick the best vehicle to support it. There is a big difference. In debating and voting on the two bills before us today, we are not making a judgment about the science itself, as others have stated. Rather, we are making a judgment about whether that science should be supported by taxpayer dollars. We are deciding the appropriate moral construct for the work of those key scientists in manipulating and possibly even destroying the basic building blocks of human life. We are reaffirming how we as a society view the embryo and its function. Every year, within our appropriations bills, we make a judgment about how we want to treat embryos--the very beginning of human life. The Dickey-Wicker amendment is clear. Federal dollars cannot be used for creating human embryos for research purposes or for research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to the risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero. Therefore, every year, as part of the appropriations process, we reaffirm that science must be guided by moral values, and our values as a society compel us to place certain limits on the pursuit of science. Today's debate will consider whether our values as a society compel us to maintain certain limits on taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. Without question, science must be guided by morality. There have been too many instances over the course of human history in which terrible things have been done in the name of science. Scientific exploration is important and we should do everything we can to further our knowledge of ourselves and our world, but not at the expense of disregarding the moral viewpoints of millions of Americans who don't believe their taxes should pay for something they find abhorrent. In determining how to proceed, we of course must consider the promise of stem cell research. But in considering that promise, we must make it clear that while stem cells may someday lead to therapeutic advancements for devastating diseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinson's, leukemia, and spinal cord injuries, that day has not come yet. That is why we must be careful not to oversell the promise of this research to the American people because this field of research has not yet resulted in human clinical trials. Every reputable scientist will admit that any possible cure or advanced treatment using embryonic stem cells are many years away. There are currently no cures waiting to be plucked off laboratory shelves after our votes on these bills. So, while the research provides great hope for millions of Americans, at this point, the full benefits have not yet been realized. They fire our imagination as we consider the possibilities that may or may not come to pass. Whether embryonic stem cells will fulfill their promise someday is still very much in question, and much work is already ongoing to see whether we can get an answer. In this context, I want to further discuss S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. A similar bill was passed the House on January 11, 2007, by a vote of 253 to 174. S. 5 would allow additional research on embryos from in vitro fertilization procedures, under some limited circumstances. However, even in these rather limited circumstances, I must oppose S. 5, because the limits it imposes on taxpayer-funded science do not respect the moral value of a human embryo. It does not fully recognize our decision within Dickey-Wicker and other contexts to treat the human embryo as more than simply material for scientific research. The supporters of this bill will acknowledge that it does not limit research to human embryos that are currently frozen but extends the window for that research well into the future. By doing so, the bill creates an incentive for the creation of embryos solely for research purposes. This is contrary to what Congress reaffirms within the Dickey-Wicker language each year. And, although the bill prohibits financial and other inducements for the parents of the embryo, it does not eliminate financial or other inducements for the clinics and doctors that create the embryos. Thus, it does not eliminate the financial incentives for in vitro fertilization clinics to create more embryos than are absolutely necessary to help parents conceive a child. This loophole will further erode the congressional prohibition through Dickey-Wicker against the creation of human embryos solely for research purposes. I am not opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but I am opposed to the provisions of S. 5. I would welcome the opportunity to debate amendments to the bill, but the agreement that governs our debate does not permit amendments. And, without an opportunity to amend S. 5, I have no choice but to vote against it. However, I will support alternatives, such as the Isakson-Coleman bill, so that we can allow greater Federal support for embryonic stem cell research. I believe we can and should unite behind a bill that respects the diversity of our views on human embryos, but still pushes the science forward. The Isakson-Coleman legislation is such a bill. A vote for or against S. 5 is not a vote for or against scientific advances. After all, if we truly trust science, we ought to give science a chance to solve this dilemma over embryonic stem cell research. As outlined by the report from the President's Council on Bioethics, researchers are exploring at least five different ways by which we can create stem cell lines without harming or destroying embryos. If these researchers are successful, then the arguments against Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will fall away. Further, States and private research organizations are already plowing billions of dollars into human embryonic stem cell research that goes beyond the parameters of President Bush's policy. Let those efforts continue, while we continue working in Congress to support stem cell research that doesn't involve harming or destroying an embryo, which is something that the vast majority of Americans could support.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I want to thank all of the key members--Senator Hutchison, Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy and others for their ongoing work and dedication to this program. I am glad that we have been able to complete our work today and send this bill to the Presiaent. I also agree that it is our intent that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administer the new waiver authority which is added to the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Program as part of this reauthorization process. The waiver authority is integral to the overall program implementation. As such, it should remain within the purview of the CDC.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Wyoming's late, great country music star Chris LeDoux has a song Some Things Never Change. I wish that were the case for Wyoming's hardworking livestock producers. As production agriculture has evolved and improved in the United States, producers in Wyoming continue to be held hostage to a regulatory nightmare and bound by the chains of unfair and manipulative marketing contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed. That is why I am reintroducing legislation today to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets. From Kaycee to Kansas City, captive supply is destroying the health of our family ranches. Many of these small businesses have operated for generations. Unfortunately, a handshake and an honest day's labor cannot compete with deceptive business practices. Captive supply is a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West. I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend. Because Wyoming is such a large State, my travels take me to a different section of the State on each trip. Throughout Wyoming I hear the same concerns from my constituents. They are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their families have done for so many years. These concerns are not unique to Wyoming. Captive supply is an industry-wide problem. So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock on the kill floor which keeps slaughterhouses in perpetual operation. The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs. But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies. The packing industry is highly concentrated. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that have not aligned with specific packers. We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor during the 2002 Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee deliberation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year. I will press this issue during the drafting of the Competition Title of the Farm Bill with my congressional colleagues. The problems caused by captive supply are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock. Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set. As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are. Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b): ``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . to: ``(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or ``(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.'' Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. The Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming. A law is not worth the paper it is printed on if it is not enforced. The posted speed limit is not a suggestion. Our law enforcement officers enforce the law when motorists fail to heed the posted sign. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower; it makes it much more difficult for them to speed. My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements. In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so. My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract. Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock. This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic. Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business. My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing--formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field. While Some Things Never Change, it is time for a sea change in the area of captive supply.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Wyoming's late, great country music star Chris LeDoux has a song Some Things Never Change. I wish that were the case for Wyoming's hardworking livestock producers. As production agriculture has evolved and improved in the United States, producers in Wyoming continue to be held hostage to a regulatory nightmare and bound by the chains of unfair and manipulative marketing contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed. That is why I am reintroducing legislation today to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets. From Kaycee to Kansas City, captive supply is destroying the health of our family ranches. Many of these small businesses have operated for generations. Unfortunately, a handshake and an honest day's labor cannot compete with deceptive business practices. Captive supply is a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West. I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend. Because Wyoming is such a large State, my travels take me to a different section of the State on each trip. Throughout Wyoming I hear the same concerns from my constituents. They are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their families have done for so many years. These concerns are not unique to Wyoming. Captive supply is an industry-wide problem. So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock on the kill floor which keeps slaughterhouses in perpetual operation. The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs. But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies. The packing industry is highly concentrated. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that have not aligned with specific packers. We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor during the 2002 Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee deliberation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year. I will press this issue during the drafting of the Competition Title of the Farm Bill with my congressional colleagues. The problems caused by captive supply are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock. Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set. As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts. Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are. Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b): ``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . to: ``(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or ``(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.'' Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. The Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming. A law is not worth the paper it is printed on if it is not enforced. The posted speed limit is not a suggestion. Our law enforcement officers enforce the law when motorists fail to heed the posted sign. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower; it makes it much more difficult for them to speed. My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong. Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements. In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so. My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract. Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock. This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic. Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business. My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing--formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field. While Some Things Never Change, it is time for a sea change in the area of captive supply.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to state my position on the Cochran amendment No. 643 voted on by the U.S. Senate. I was unable to vote due to a family emergency but would have voted in favor of the Cochran amendment. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the amendment. I do not support congressional micromanagement of military operations and I do not support the congressionally mandated phased deployment of our troops in Iraq. Troop redeployment decisions should be made by military leaders and the combat commanders who are on the ground in Iraq. I do not favor a set redeployment date, reporting to our enemies in language ``cut in stone.'' Congress must provide our troops with the resources they need when they need it. I fully support our Armed Forces personnel in their current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want our troops to come home as soon as possible. My goal has always been for American Armed Forces to stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. The United States cannot abandon the efforts of the people who have sacrificed so much.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the Senate concludes debate on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, I would like to thank Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg for all of their hard work at the mark-up last week. We had a constructive debate, and while I did not vote for the product, I respect the process and way he ran the committee mark-up. I know that crafting an annual budget is a difficult task. I also want to acknowledge the importance of writing and passing a budget resolution. This document is a vital part of the operation of Congress. It sets a fiscal blueprint that Congress will follow for the year, and establishes procedural hurdles when these guidelines are not adhered to. As an accountant, I think it is a valuable exercise to review our Nation's overall priorities. I was disappointed to learn that the committee-reported resolution, adopted on a party-line vote, doesn't do more to promote economic growth and limit overall government spending. This is a tax-and-spend, big-government budget. It assumes that the tax cuts will expire as scheduled under current law, resulting in $900 billion in tax increases for Americans. The Democratic budget also far outspends the President's discretionary budget request. The committee- reported resolution allows for $949 billion in regular, nonemergency budget authority to the appropriations committee, $18 billion more than the President's requested level of $933 billion. It also does nothing, on net, to reduce mandatory spending. Our Nation's mandatory health programs are growing each year by more than 6 percent--an unsustainable level--and last week the Budget Committee rejected, on party-line votes, two amendments that would have included reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee to contain this spending. I have a legislative track record of fiscal responsibility and meaningful deficit reduction. In 2005, under the Deficit Reduction Act, the Republican Congress was able to produce nearly $40 billion in spending cuts. I am proud that under my chairmanship, the HELP Committee led the entire Congress in deficit reduction, and produced $15.5 billion in savings--that is 40 percent of the entire law. But that was then. Let me restate that now, the budget resolution we are debating on the floor of the Senate does nothing to reduce net mandatory spending. It's not right to overspend now--and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren to pay later. I challenge the Senate to work across party lines and do more to shore up our economic future. If one-half of the Senate authorizing committees equal the level of deficit reduction this year that the HELP Committee achieved in 2005, the deficit would be reduced by an additional $100 billion. But this week, similar to the mark-up last week, the Senate rejected multiple amendments to reform our Nation's largest entitlement programs and slow the growth in mandatory spending. In my role as lead Republican on the HELP Committee, I will continue to use the reauthorization process to stretch Federal dollars the farthest--ensuring that programs are cost effective and not duplicative, so that precious Federal funds touch as many people as possible. I will also look for an avenue this year to address health care access and affordability. As my colleagues know, last year Senator Ben Nelson and I introduced legislation that would allow business and trade associations to band their members together in small business health plans, and offer group health coverage on a national or statewide basis. This legislation, The Health Insurance Marketplace and Modernization and Affordability Act, was a direct response to the runaway costs that are driving Americans and small businesses away from the health insurance marketplace. The HELP Committee has a role to play in making employer-sponsored health care more accessible and affordable. Employer-provided health insurance is voluntary--and it is in critical condition. Sixty percent of the country's employers offer insurance today, down 9 percent from just 5 years ago. And the cost of health insurance for companies has nearly doubled in that same period--with employers expected to pay an average of $8,167 per employee family, versus $4,248 5 years ago. Progress on this critical issue is moving forward, and bipartisan discussions are promising. Last year we built a very solid foundation, which continues to grow. We are continuing to move forward on this issue and to deal with outstanding concerns. I am actively engaged in negotiations with other members of this body on how best to craft that proposal. Rather, the best way to achieve real small business health care reform is to proceed forcefully to build on the significant progress we made last year. Development of small business health legislation is a process that is well along, and I believe success is in sight. We are on a promising track, and we should stick with it. America's small businesses deserve no less than our sincere commitment to make this effort a success. I also want to mention progress on another HELP-related bill, mental health parity legislation. In February, the HELP Committee favorably reported the Domenici-Kennedy-Enzi compromise parity bill on a bipartisan vote of 18-3. It is the product of more than 2 years of bipartisan negotiations and supported by more than 60 organizations. I am pleased that Senator Domenici authored a deficit-neutral reserve fund for mental health parity legislation at the mark-up last week. This reserve fund will serve as a placeholder in the budget for our compromise legislation, which focuses on a benefit, not a mandate. Lastly, I would like to call attention to an amendment that I offered at the Budget mark-up last week, and reoffered on the floor. The amendment is very simple: it establishes a 60-vote threshold for legislation that imposes unfunded mandates on the private sector, in excess of the $131 million threshold for fiscal year 2007 established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, UMRA. A 60-vote point of order currently applies to legislation that imposes unfunded mandates on State and local governments. I think the Senate should have a new 60-vote point of order that applies to legislation that creates unfunded private sector mandates. We here in Washington must stop thinking that we have a monopoly on good ideas. This is a commonsense proposal, and should have been approved. I also want to take this opportunity to mention a few programs that are important to Wyoming. As our Nation's most abundant energy source, coal must play a central role in electrical generation for years to come. In order for that to happen, we need to continue finding ways to make coal generation cleaner. Programs like the Clean Coal Power Initiative will play a major role in making that happen and so I support increased funding of this program. We also need to see proper funding of the Federal loan guarantee program. Federal loan guarantees can play an important role in developing new energy projects. It is my hope that we can provide enough funding to get some of these projects off the drawing board, and most specifically, I hope that we provide funding to the Department of Energy to move forward with loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids projects. Coal-to-liquids technology has the potential to help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons and should be explored. In addition, funding for rural air service and maintenance is essential for states like Wyoming. Without Federal support through essential air service and airport improvement programs, many rural communities would have no commercial air service and extremely limited general aviation. I hope this issue will be part of the debate on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration this year. I encourage my colleagues to recognize the importance of this funding, not only as a matter of dependability, but also as a public safety issue. I want to mention two additional issues of great importance to Wyoming and other rural States; housing and homelessness. The McKinney Vento Homelessness Assistance Act is the primary law through which Congress funds homelessness programs in the United States. Unfortunately, rural States have historically received very little of this money. Yet rural States must confront homelessness too, and the geographic size of our States further complicates our efforts. In response to this, Congress authorized the Rural Homelessness Grant Program in 1992 under the McKinney-Vento Act. This program provides funding for transitional housing and education services in rural States, as well as rental or down-payment assistance. The intent of this program is to level the playing field between rural and urban States. Unfortunately, this program has never been appropriated funds since its creation, so the purpose of this program has never been fulfilled, and rural states continue to suffer. This can be a valuable program for rural States like Wyoming. I would like to briefly call attention to the Small Business Administration. I serve on the Small Business Committee and enjoy using my small business experience to help make a difference in the lives of many people in Wyoming and throughout the country. We are working in Wyoming to stabilize and steadily grow our small businesses through the utilization of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, program. The risk and expense of conducting serious research and development efforts are often beyond the means of many small businesses, especially rural small businesses. By reserving a specific percentage of Federal R&D funds for small business, SBIR enables small businesses to compete on the same level as larger businesses and stimulate high-tech innovation in their rural States. The FAST and Rural Outreach programs are congressionally authorized programs that provide technical assistance that helps Wyoming's small businesses utilize the SBIR program. Finally, the Agriculture Committee has a big task in reauthorizing the farm bill this year. Writing a tight budget that will help us reach our long-term fiscal goals is a priority for me. However, we also need to provide adequate funding in the budget for the farm bill. Though you cannot tell by the name, the farm bill affects the lives of many unsuspecting Americans. Policies and projects for distance learning, conservation, food assistance, renewable fuels, and our forests are provided for in the farm bill, in addition to the well-known commodity programs. The Senate should reject this tax and spend budget. It increases taxes on working families by $900 billion, creates a spending spree on the Government's credit card and does nothing to contain runaway entitlement spending.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators Ben Nelson, Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, and Salazar, to offer a bipartisan amendment which creates a deficit neutral reserve fund that recognizes the significance of market-based pooling as a tool in addressing rising health insurance costs, and health care quality. Market-based pooling is especially important for small businesses, which now have virtually no ability to use strength in numbers across State lines to negotiate better and more affordable coverage for their workers. America faces an ever-widening gap between health care ``haves'' and ``have nots.'' Without effective market pooling power, ever-growing numbers of small businesses and uninsured and underinsured Americans are slipping into the ``have not'' column. This is a tragic gap we can and must close. Senator Nelson and I are actively discussing with our colleagues possible bipartisan approaches. As the wide bipartisan support for today's amendment shows, we are on a promising track, and we intend to stick with it. Market-based pooling must be a part of any comprehensive health reform solution. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 497

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from North Dakota. He and I do have a lot in common. My grandparents homesteaded in North Dakota, and he and I both have a degree from the same college. We share a respect for the process of the Senate. I certainly respect him for the way he handles the budget and the fairness with which he has done so. I hope he and others on the other side of the aisle will take another look at this amendment and not feel any fear. I hate to have people vote on a sense that there might be something sinister. If one looks at my record in the Senate, they will find I do not do things that are sinister, but I do things that protect small business. As I have pointed out before, a point of order can be waived. If there are 60 votes, that point of order falls, and the issue moves forward. The Senator mentioned mental health parity. Yes, I am a cosponsor of mental health parity legislation. I have helped to bring people together, to find a third way of doing it, to get it into the 80-percent category, and move it forward for the first time. I know Senator Domenici has been working on this issue for over 6 years, close to 10 years, to get it to the point where it is now. I certainly wouldn't do anything that would put that bill in jeopardy. It could be in jeopardy because there is already a 60-vote point of order against it we will have to waive in order to go forward. On a lot of these small business issues, there would be a 60-vote point of order already available on it. As I mentioned before, there is already another 60-vote possibility because anybody in the Senate can filibuster an issue which can cause it to fall into a category of needing a cloture motion. When you file a cloture motion, if you were to file it today, we couldn't vote on it until Saturday, and we would be debating the qualities of that amendment until Saturday. Saturday, when we had the 60 votes to pass it, then there would be another 30 hours of debate before the actual vote on that amendment, if everybody wanted to press the time. That would take up 5 days, maybe 6 days. Waiving a point of order takes a few moments, and we can see if there is the strength to move the issue forward and discourage filibusters. There is some real merit to having this point of order, both to show we have a concern for small business and recognize they are the engine that drives the economy of this country and that we do need to watch out for them, protect them, and keep from putting them out of business. I hope my colleagues will take a careful look at this amendment and see the merit in it instead of sensing that there could be implications. I do not have any ulterior motives, other than my normal concern for small business and the feeling we need to watch out for them. It doesn't hurt to have a searching for answers, sometimes a third way, to get done what we want to do to allow small business to succeed and for us to do what we wish to do. I hope my colleagues will take a look at this amendment and vote for it. I sense there are some who are going to vote for it anyway. I hope they follow through and vote for it. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I will be happy to address any concerns. We have looked at a number of issues, historically, to see what the effect would be. We think the effect would be good legislation for small business and for the economy of this country. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It establishes a 60-vote threshold for legislation that imposes unfunded mandates on small businesses as determined by the Small Business Administration, when it is in excess of $131 million, which is established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. As my colleagues may know, small businesses make up 99\7/10\ percent of all U.S. employers and employs 50 percent of the Nation's nonfarm private sector workers. That is according to the Small Business Administration. Congress has an obligation to make sure laws written in Washington don't unfairly burden Main Street. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act already requires the CBO to estimate whether Congress imposes mandates on the private sector. Right now there is a 60-vote point of order against legislation if the Federal mandates estimate has not been printed in the committee report or the Congressional Record. The fiscal year 2006 budget resolution conference agreement included a 60-vote point of order for imposing unfunded mandates on State and local governments. That is State and local governments, but it doesn't say anything about the engine of the economy: small businesses. My colleagues will notice that I have left out big business. Big business can usually take care of itself, but small business doesn't have the people or the clout to be able to come here and point out to us the gross burdens we are putting on them. So I think the Senate should have a new 60-vote point of order that applies to legislation that creates unfunded, private sector mandates. It is time for Congress to remember that our actions here in Washington have very real monetary consequences on the small business owners in Buffalo, WY, or Conway, NH, or Main Street, Anywhere. I came to Washington from Wyoming as a firm believer in what I call the 80/20 rule. I have found you can reach agreement on 80 percent of all the issues. I also know we are probably never going to reach agreement on the other 20 percent. But any unfunded mandates Congress imposes on the private sector should fall into--no, not the 80-percent category; I am just asking for a 60-percent category and receive strong support on both sides of the aisle that way. This 80/20 rule was the guiding principle for my chairmanship of the HELP Committee during the 109th Congress. Senator Kennedy and I abided by that. We avoided the highly partisan issues. We worked on the nonpartisan or the bipartisan issues. It turned out to be, instead of the most contentious committee, one of the more agreeable committees. We accomplished a tremendous amount of work. In fact, President Bush signed 27 committee bills into law. Most of those went through by unanimous consent. That is far above the 60-vote threshold I am asking for with this amendment. We in Washington have to stop thinking our good ideas can be paid for by the wave of a wand. To that end, the Senate needs a procedural tool to remind ourselves that the policies we pass in Washington often translate to the direct cost increases on the businesses on Main Street. This is a commonsense proposal. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I am sure there are small business supporters on both sides of the aisle who can see the benefit. I will mention that, right now, there is a 60-vote point of order in the Senate on everything. It is a filibuster. With a filibuster, 60 people have to agree before you can move on. That is often a 5-day waste of time. It would be much more convenient if we could get a vote and see that there are 60 people in support and know that even a filibuster isn't going to work against it. That would allow things to move forward faster. I am not trying to slow the process. I am trying to provide a mechanism that protects small business and allows us to get on with the business of the Senate. It seems to me to be a win-win situation for us. We do protect cities, towns, counties, States, all of their small governments and even some big governments, but we don't protect the small businessman. The small businessman is what keeps this economy moving, keeps us going. I am sure there isn't any issue that falls into that 80 percent that we all can agree on, that we cannot get 60 percent approval to move forward on. It will encourage more bipartisanship, and I think in the last election that was the main message delivered to all of us. It wasn't the base of either party that provided the impetus for any changes. It was the independents and the folks who said: Come on, guys, get along and get something done in Washington. That is what we are trying to do with this particular measure--move things along at a faster rate and to assure that small businesses can thrive in this country and that we get agreement from 60 percent of the people in this body to move forward. This will provide needed protection to small businesses. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the NFIB be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up Senate amendment No. 497.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, do I have time remaining?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It establishes a 60-vote threshold for legislation that imposes an unfunded mandate on small businesses which exceeds $131 million, as determined by the Small Business Administration. We do it for municipalities. We do it for States. We do it for tribes. We do not do it for small businesses. Small businesses make up 99.7 percent of all U.S. employers and employ 50 percent of the Nation's nonfarm private sector workers. We have an obligation to make sure laws written in Washington do not unfairly burden Main Street. Now, checking back, I found that bills that adversely affect small business usually get hung up on cloture, which is a form of point of order but a very lengthy one. The ones that take care of small business frequently get a huge vote. Now, it is possible to mention there will be things coming up, such as mental health parity--I am a cosponsor on that one; I can assure you that is one where small business will not be given a bad deal--the Department of Defense. We can override any waiver. In this body, it takes 60 votes to do cloture. This will speed up the process.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, as I begin my comments on the resolutions we have under consideration, I want to first 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 them all for their heartfelt 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. Over the years, I have been to Iraq and I have met with the members of our Armed Forces there and, later, here in the United States when they have returned home. These remarkable men and women exemplify the best qualities of our Nation. They volunteered to serve in the best trained force in the world and they deserve our complete and unwavering support. If it were possible, I would like to have each and every one of our troops back home with their families and friends immediately. We cannot, however, pull our troops out of Iraq at this point without facing extremely dire consequences for a long time to come. I have spoken at length to our troops about their mission and they understand their mission. I was thinking about them, and all of the members of our military who are presently serving around the world as I began to prepare my remarks. I thought back to the days, years ago, when I was first elected to serve as the Mayor of Gillette, WY. I made a habit of carrying around a copy of the United States Constitution with me everywhere I went. I kept it in my coat pocket, next to my pen, and whenever I looked at it, it reminded me of two things--the Government I was a part of, and the people I was elected to serve. Then, when I came here to the Senate, the Constitution took on an even greater, deeper meaning for me. I see it as my job description. That is why I make sure to always keep it handy so it can continue to serve as a reminder of the detailed portrait it contains of our Federal Government and how it was designed to work by our Founding Fathers. Today, it provides us with a good starting point for our debate and it provides some of the answers to the issues before us. The relevant parts of the our country's Constitution are quite clear. Congress must be consulted before any large scale military operation is begun. But once that has been done, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, the President, is to direct the effort that we have approved. The Founding Fathers had a good reason for establishing the President as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and the one who is responsible for making the decisions affecting the actions of our Nation's military. That does not mean that Congress does not have a play in these decisions. We all have an important role to play when it comes to matters like these. Again, in their great wisdom, the drafters of our Constitution knew that Congress could--and should--influence policy-- but they knew it would be impossible for us to have all the information available to the President to debate and assess before making a decision on the viability of every military operation. The process of determining military strategy would be a nightmare if we were to be expected to debate all of the intricacies of every policy and, by so doing, publicly reveal some of the information obtained by our intelligence agencies on the House and Senate floor before reaching a decision. Our procedure on the Senate floor is a good process for debating and considering legislation, but it is a process that does not lend itself well to producing a quick and informed military decision at a time of crisis. Those thoughts were on my mind when the President put forward a new strategy for us to pursue in Iraq, recognizing that what we are currently doing is not working. General David Petraeus, our U.S. Commander in Iraq, testified before us about that policy. He is consulting with highly educated and trained members of the military, many from universities where criticism of U.S. efforts in Iraq has flourished. It is evident that the President and his advisors are seeking analysis and recommendations from people who recognize the fact that the road ahead will be complicated and difficult. Listening to the debate, I have heard many of my colleagues sum up the President's new strategy as just increasing the number of American troops in Iraq. I do not believe it is a matter of numbers. The real question should be what the placement of these troops is designed to accomplish. There is no question that there must be a clearly defined mission for them on the ground. By having more forces on the ground, we may be able to decrease the vulnerability of our troops as they move from place to place. That will provide them with the backup and protection they need to more safely pursue their mission. In the months to come, it is clear that there are several things the new policy must do if it is to be successful. First and foremost, the new campaign must provide the security the people of Iraq must have to feel safe at home. If they do not feel secure under the protection of the United States, coalition, and Iraqi forces, they will turn toward terrorist organizations that will prey on their fears and provide a false sense of security. America's long-term security interests and the possibility of world peace will be best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, while serving as an ally in the war against the terrorists. Looking long term, I think we would all agree that the future of Iraq will directly affect the balance of power in the Middle East. That is why countries throughout the region are watching to see what action we will take in Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of United States and coalition forces will leave our allies in the region forced to prepare for additional conflicts. Our mission in Iraq has not been easy, and it will not get easier in the days to come. After all, we are facing centuries-old difficulties as we work with the people of Iraq to help them overcome their religious and ethnic differences to form a nation that will work to benefit and protect all their people. Ultimately, what the future of Iraq will be is up to the Iraqi people themselves. Iraq must put together a working coalition of its three major groups, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia, as well as other ethnic and religious minorities. They must work for national reconciliation through shared responsibilities as well as shared oil revenues that will be used to solve the problems that exist in their own backyard. Such a reconciliation will not only be good for Iraq, but the Middle East as a whole. We have set forth benchmark requirements for the Iraqis to make. Our first benchmark has been met. Their parliament has approved an equitable split of oil revenues between the three factions. This is progress. Looking back, the record is clear. Like many Members of the United States Senate, I supported the original decision in 2002 to take action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The vote I cast that day was not an easy decision. The tough ones are like that. You make the best decision you can, based on the information you have on hand at the time you have to make it. Those are the decisions that make us all lose sleep for years afterward. Anytime you vote to put our Nation's young men and women in harm's way, it stays with you long after the fighting is over and our troops are on their way back home. Today, I remain concerned about the safety of the people on the ground: Americans, coalition allies, and the Iraqi people. And there is good reason for my concern. With today's rapid communication made possible by the Internet, cell phones, and other technologies, what we say here can almost instantaneously find its way around the world and straight to the camps of both friends and foes--and they are both watching. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the whole world is watching to see what we will decide to do. That leads me to ask, what do we hope to accomplish through this debate? We have already approved the nomination of General Petraeus by a unanimous vote. Now we are considering a resolution condemning a plan he has not had a chance to put into action yet. What sort of message will we send our troops with our vote on that? As Members of the United States Senate, we have the opportunity to voice our opinions to the President and our constituents. But the fact that we are even going through this debate at this point in time may give those who wish to do us harm hope and embolden them--and once emboldened they will pose an even greater threat to our troops. As we continue with our consideration of these resolutions, I want to be clear that I do not want to cut funding for the troops. Their safety and their very lives depend on that funding. When you are in a war, you do not do that to the troops. Looking ahead, in the months to come, Congress must continue to closely monitor the actions of the new Iraqi government, our military leaders, and our civilian leaders. We should continue to express our opinions, and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure our troops are provided the best support possible so that they can come home soon. We should not, however, further endanger the lives of Americans and Iraqis simply to make a statement and take a stand against the President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act with Senator Dorgan and a number of Senators. This legislation addresses only the travel provisions of our Cuba policy. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is very straightforward. It states that the President should not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba through the years and I am reminded of something my dad used to say--if you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to wind up getting what you already got. That has been the situation with the United States policy on Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for over 40 years, and our strategy has not worked. I am suggesting a change to get more people in Cuba to increase the dialogue. Most of us know that Fidel Castro's health is not good and that he ceded power to his brother Raul last year. I have heard arguments that now is not the time to change our policy toward Cuba, and that by changing policy, we could strengthen Raul's grip on the nation. This is the same argument we have been hearing for the last 40 years, simply a new verse. When we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to their families in Cuba, end the people-to-people exchanges, and stop the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we are not hurting the Cuban government--we are hurting the Cuban people. We are further diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries. If we allow travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we take away the Cuban government's ability to blame the hardships of the Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the more we work to improve the lives of the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by the Cuban government. It is time for a different policy--one that goes further than embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goal of sharing democratic ideas with the people of Cuba. The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our Cuba travel policy toward that will lead to real change for the people of Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and extended family from the United States. Let them hear it from the American people who will go there. The people of this country are our best ambassadors and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a nation are all about. If we want to give the Cuban people real knowledge of the truth about America, we need to have Americans go there to share it. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas--ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change in any nation. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing. Countries around the world are trading with Cuba, investing in Cuba, and allowing their citizens to visit Cuba. China, Venezuela, and Iran are becoming the largest investors on the island. These nations are in a position to directly influence the future of Cuba. Americans are nowhere to be found. Keeping the door closed and yelling at the Castro government on the other side does nothing to spread democracy and does nothing to help the people of Cuba. Let us do something, let us open the door and talk to the Cuban people. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and join me in this effort.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act with Senator Dorgan and a number of Senators. This legislation addresses only the travel provisions of our Cuba policy. The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is very straightforward. It states that the President should not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba through the years and I am reminded of something my dad used to say--if you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to wind up getting what you already got. That has been the situation with the United States policy on Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for over 40 years, and our strategy has not worked. I am suggesting a change to get more people in Cuba to increase the dialogue. Most of us know that Fidel Castro's health is not good and that he ceded power to his brother Raul last year. I have heard arguments that now is not the time to change our policy toward Cuba, and that by changing policy, we could strengthen Raul's grip on the nation. This is the same argument we have been hearing for the last 40 years, simply a new verse. When we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to their families in Cuba, end the people-to-people exchanges, and stop the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we are not hurting the Cuban government--we are hurting the Cuban people. We are further diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries. If we allow travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we take away the Cuban government's ability to blame the hardships of the Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the more we work to improve the lives of the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by the Cuban government. It is time for a different policy--one that goes further than embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goal of sharing democratic ideas with the people of Cuba. The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our Cuba travel policy toward that will lead to real change for the people of Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and extended family from the United States. Let them hear it from the American people who will go there. The people of this country are our best ambassadors and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a nation are all about. If we want to give the Cuban people real knowledge of the truth about America, we need to have Americans go there to share it. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of ideas--ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change in any nation. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing. Countries around the world are trading with Cuba, investing in Cuba, and allowing their citizens to visit Cuba. China, Venezuela, and Iran are becoming the largest investors on the island. These nations are in a position to directly influence the future of Cuba. Americans are nowhere to be found. Keeping the door closed and yelling at the Castro government on the other side does nothing to spread democracy and does nothing to help the people of Cuba. Let us do something, let us open the door and talk to the Cuban people. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and join me in this effort.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007. This legislation, a product of close cooperation with my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, seeks to create a more efficient governance structure of the American Red Cross, and to enhance the Board of Governors' ability to support the critical mission of the American Red Cross in the 21st Century. Charitable organizations are an indispensable part of American society, but these organizations can only fulfill their important roles by maintaining the trust of the American public. This trust is fostered by effective governance and transparency, which are the principal goals of this legislation. The role of the American Red Cross is one of vital significance to the American people. The ability of the American Red Cross to meet its responsibilities requires a governance structure that reflects a need for clear mission and a culture of accountability. This past October the American Red Cross Board of Governors announced its unanimous support for a series of important changes to its charter and business practice. The American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007 enables a number of those changes, including clarifying the role of the Board of Governors as one of governance and strategic oversight. As this bill facilitates these governance reforms, the American Red Cross is expected to continue to implement amendments to its bylaws consistent with those described in the Governance Report to clarify further the role of the Board of Governors and to outline areas of its responsibility. This bill ensures that the American Red Cross will remain a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States, and it has the rights and obligations consistent with that status. Consistent with that status Congress expects that the American Red Cross will maintain appropriate communications with State regulators of charitable organizations and to cooperate with them as appropriate in specific matters as they arise from time to time. Finally, we believe the effectiveness of the American Red Cross will be promoted by the creation of a Red Cross ombudsman to be a dispute resolution practitioner to provide confidential and informal assistance to the many internal and external stakeholders of the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross ombudsman will report to Congress, the American Red Cross chief executive officer, and the audit committee of the Board of Governors. The Red Cross ombudsman will have access to anyone and any documents in the American Red Cross. This is an important tool for improving processes and protections for those inside the American Red Cross who wish to express concerns about the organizations practices and procedures, and an important tool for Congress in providing oversight of the activities of the American Red Cross. I urge my colleagues to vote for the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007. This legislation, a product of close cooperation with my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, seeks to create a more efficient governance structure of the American Red Cross, and to enhance the Board of Governors' ability to support the critical mission of the American Red Cross in the 21st Century. Charitable organizations are an indispensable part of American society, but these organizations can only fulfill their important roles by maintaining the trust of the American public. This trust is fostered by effective governance and transparency, which are the principal goals of this legislation. The role of the American Red Cross is one of vital significance to the American people. The ability of the American Red Cross to meet its responsibilities requires a governance structure that reflects a need for clear mission and a culture of accountability. This past October the American Red Cross Board of Governors announced its unanimous support for a series of important changes to its charter and business practice. The American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007 enables a number of those changes, including clarifying the role of the Board of Governors as one of governance and strategic oversight. As this bill facilitates these governance reforms, the American Red Cross is expected to continue to implement amendments to its bylaws consistent with those described in the Governance Report to clarify further the role of the Board of Governors and to outline areas of its responsibility. This bill ensures that the American Red Cross will remain a federally chartered instrumentality of the United States, and it has the rights and obligations consistent with that status. Consistent with that status Congress expects that the American Red Cross will maintain appropriate communications with State regulators of charitable organizations and to cooperate with them as appropriate in specific matters as they arise from time to time. Finally, we believe the effectiveness of the American Red Cross will be promoted by the creation of a Red Cross ombudsman to be a dispute resolution practitioner to provide confidential and informal assistance to the many internal and external stakeholders of the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross ombudsman will report to Congress, the American Red Cross chief executive officer, and the audit committee of the Board of Governors. The Red Cross ombudsman will have access to anyone and any documents in the American Red Cross. This is an important tool for improving processes and protections for those inside the American Red Cross who wish to express concerns about the organizations practices and procedures, and an important tool for Congress in providing oversight of the activities of the American Red Cross. I urge my colleagues to vote for the American National Red Cross Governance Modernization Act of 2007.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first and foremost I want to thank my respective colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Domenici for their dedication and leadership on the issues of mental health parity. Your commitment and willingness to compromise has gotten us to the point where we are today--introducing a mental health parity bill that has the potential to be signed into law this year. For many this is monumental. Parity for mental health benefits was first championed by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Domenici in memory of our late colleague took over as the lead advocate for this legislation after the passing of Senator Wellstone. Today is a reflection of your hard work, Senator Domenici, as well as the groundwork that was laid by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. The advocacy of my good colleagues Senator Wellstone and Domenici helped to get the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 signed into law. This legislation acted as a catalyst for many states to take action in passing their own mental health parity laws. To date 38 States have passed some sort of mental health parity or benefit law. Many of these laws go much farther than the 1996 Act. However, there is a concern that while the 1996 Act requires parity for annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage, group plans may impose more restrictive treatment and cost sharing requirements. This is a legit concern. There is a also a valid concern that requiring parity or mental health benefits will drive up the cost of insurance, and result in group plans offering less coverage or even worse dropping coverage for both mental and physical health. The bill introduced today recognizes both of these concerns and addresses them. This in turn breaks the log jam that has halted efforts in the past three Congress's to pass a Mental Health Parity Act that is more widely known as the Paul Wellston Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. The Mental Health Parity Act we are introducing today is a compromise between the proponents and those who opposed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. It is a result of two years of discussion and compromise between the business and insurer industry and the mental health community. I want to thank both of you for coming together in good faith to find a middle ground on an issue has polarized stakeholders. Your support and input has been critical to making this process work. Your willingness to work together to accommodate each others concerns, makes it possible for a mental health parity law to be enacted this Congress. A vital component of the Mental Health Parity Act introduced today recognizes the importance and need for treating mental health equal to physical health, without unfairly mandating group health plans offer mental health coverage. The legislation applies only to those group health plans that already offer physical and surgical benefits as well as mental health benefits. It does not mandate what types of mental health benefits must receive parity, but leaves that to be defined under the terms of the plan or coverage or as defined under State law. What this legislation does do, is require a plan to provide financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to mental health benefits equal to the financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to medical and surgical benefits that the plan covers. For example, deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, out of pocket expenses, frequency of treatment, number of visits and days of coverage will now be treated equally for mental health and physical health. To allow for health plans to adequately manage the new parity requirement mechanisms are authorized to allow for medical management tools to be used by health plans. Provisions of this law will preempt provisions of State law that differ. But again, this bill would not preempt State laws mandating that mental health benefits be covered. Furthermore, States that elect to adopt the Federal standards would not be subject to preemption. In addition, the legislation recognizes the stress many small business employers are under to provide health care to their employees, thus, this bill does exempts small employers. Any employer with 50 or less employees will not be affected by the Federal law, but must still comply with its State law or regulation. Another critical component of this compromised legislation is a cost exemption. Under the provision, an employer may elect to continue to offer mental health parity if a group plan results in an increase of 2 percent in the case of the first plan year and 1 percent in the case of each subsequent plan year. The compromises made in this legislation are of great importance to making sure this legislation will not burden employers struggling with health care costs, while not compromising the significance or effect this legislation will have in ensuring individuals have better access to critical mental health services. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans ages 18 and older, have a mental disorder that can be diagnosed in a given year according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. However, their ability to receive treatment may be hindered due to cost issues or the stigma attached to mental illness. This legislation will help to address both by sending the message that mental health is just as important as physical health, and needs to be treated with the same amount of importance. This bill signals to an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia that his or her illness is as real as an individual diagnosed with diabetes and that they should not have to pay more for the mental illness than the physical. This legislation will help an employee covered by an affected plan who has a child with bipolar disorder better access to the treatment that child needs. In the past 20 years new technologies and treatments have advanced our understanding and ability to treat a mental illness. We now know with the right diagnoses, support, treatment and case management a person with mental illness can be a contributing member of society. It is time to update our laws to reflect this. While introduction today is a huge step forward for a Mental Health Parity law, much more needs to be done to secure its passage. The legislation, as it is currently crafted, still must pass through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as early as Wednesday, the full Senate and then the House. At this point, a process has been created that allows for open and honest discussion. I encourage my colleagues and the stakeholders to continue this process and to remain together throughout each step of the way. By working together, instead of against each other, we can achieve passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Head Start programs are critical to ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, enter school ready to learn and succeed. I want to thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for his ongoing commitment to our bipartisan approach, which has resulted in a bill that meets the needs of children and families who participate in the Head Start program throughout our Nation. I would also like to thank our colleagues Senators Alexander and Dodd and their staff for their fine work as well. This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and help ensure that children in this important program will be better prepared to enter school with the skills to succeed. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. Head Start provides early education for over 900,000 children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere. It is because of these 900,000 children we have all worked so hard to improve and strengthen this Act. I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions we put forth in this legislation. The legislation we introduce today limits the timeframe for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe or misusing Federal funds--and are often continuing those bad practices for months, as long as 600 days in some cases--during the termination process. This equates to children not receiving quality services, and instead of being prepared for success, they fall further behind. Additional steps have been taken in this legislation to increase the quality of the Head Start program including providing the Secretary the authority to terminate a grantee that has multiple and recurring deficiencies that has not made significant and substantial progress toward correcting those deficiencies. We recognize that a vast majority of the Head Start agencies provide high quality, comprehensive services for children in the Head Start programs. However, the provisions in this bill will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, and in the best interest of the children they serve. Senator Dodd has provided valuable leadership as we worked to develop a clear policy on the roles and responsibilities of the governing body and policy councils. We have worked together to clarify and strengthen the roles of the governing body and policy councils. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned. The bill clarifies those responsibilities leading to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best possible way. I want to particularly note emphasis we have placed on the role of parents in Head Start programs. It is vital to remember that this program provides services to children and their families. Parents provide valuable insight and experience as to what a Head Start program should do for children. Senators Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd have worked tirelessly on this legislation and championed increasing coordination, collaboration, and excellence in early childhood education and care programs. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senators Kennedy, Alexander, and Dodd, for their work in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come. It is my hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first and foremost I want to thank my respective colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Domenici for their dedication and leadership on the issues of mental health parity. Your commitment and willingness to compromise has gotten us to the point where we are today--introducing a mental health parity bill that has the potential to be signed into law this year. For many this is monumental. Parity for mental health benefits was first championed by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Domenici in memory of our late colleague took over as the lead advocate for this legislation after the passing of Senator Wellstone. Today is a reflection of your hard work, Senator Domenici, as well as the groundwork that was laid by the late Senator Paul Wellstone. The advocacy of my good colleagues Senator Wellstone and Domenici helped to get the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 signed into law. This legislation acted as a catalyst for many states to take action in passing their own mental health parity laws. To date 38 States have passed some sort of mental health parity or benefit law. Many of these laws go much farther than the 1996 Act. However, there is a concern that while the 1996 Act requires parity for annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage, group plans may impose more restrictive treatment and cost sharing requirements. This is a legit concern. There is a also a valid concern that requiring parity or mental health benefits will drive up the cost of insurance, and result in group plans offering less coverage or even worse dropping coverage for both mental and physical health. The bill introduced today recognizes both of these concerns and addresses them. This in turn breaks the log jam that has halted efforts in the past three Congress's to pass a Mental Health Parity Act that is more widely known as the Paul Wellston Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. The Mental Health Parity Act we are introducing today is a compromise between the proponents and those who opposed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. It is a result of two years of discussion and compromise between the business and insurer industry and the mental health community. I want to thank both of you for coming together in good faith to find a middle ground on an issue has polarized stakeholders. Your support and input has been critical to making this process work. Your willingness to work together to accommodate each others concerns, makes it possible for a mental health parity law to be enacted this Congress. A vital component of the Mental Health Parity Act introduced today recognizes the importance and need for treating mental health equal to physical health, without unfairly mandating group health plans offer mental health coverage. The legislation applies only to those group health plans that already offer physical and surgical benefits as well as mental health benefits. It does not mandate what types of mental health benefits must receive parity, but leaves that to be defined under the terms of the plan or coverage or as defined under State law. What this legislation does do, is require a plan to provide financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to mental health benefits equal to the financial requirements and treatment limitations applied to medical and surgical benefits that the plan covers. For example, deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, out of pocket expenses, frequency of treatment, number of visits and days of coverage will now be treated equally for mental health and physical health. To allow for health plans to adequately manage the new parity requirement mechanisms are authorized to allow for medical management tools to be used by health plans. Provisions of this law will preempt provisions of State law that differ. But again, this bill would not preempt State laws mandating that mental health benefits be covered. Furthermore, States that elect to adopt the Federal standards would not be subject to preemption. In addition, the legislation recognizes the stress many small business employers are under to provide health care to their employees, thus, this bill does exempts small employers. Any employer with 50 or less employees will not be affected by the Federal law, but must still comply with its State law or regulation. Another critical component of this compromised legislation is a cost exemption. Under the provision, an employer may elect to continue to offer mental health parity if a group plan results in an increase of 2 percent in the case of the first plan year and 1 percent in the case of each subsequent plan year. The compromises made in this legislation are of great importance to making sure this legislation will not burden employers struggling with health care costs, while not compromising the significance or effect this legislation will have in ensuring individuals have better access to critical mental health services. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans ages 18 and older, have a mental disorder that can be diagnosed in a given year according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration. However, their ability to receive treatment may be hindered due to cost issues or the stigma attached to mental illness. This legislation will help to address both by sending the message that mental health is just as important as physical health, and needs to be treated with the same amount of importance. This bill signals to an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia that his or her illness is as real as an individual diagnosed with diabetes and that they should not have to pay more for the mental illness than the physical. This legislation will help an employee covered by an affected plan who has a child with bipolar disorder better access to the treatment that child needs. In the past 20 years new technologies and treatments have advanced our understanding and ability to treat a mental illness. We now know with the right diagnoses, support, treatment and case management a person with mental illness can be a contributing member of society. It is time to update our laws to reflect this. While introduction today is a huge step forward for a Mental Health Parity law, much more needs to be done to secure its passage. The legislation, as it is currently crafted, still must pass through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee as early as Wednesday, the full Senate and then the House. At this point, a process has been created that allows for open and honest discussion. I encourage my colleagues and the stakeholders to continue this process and to remain together throughout each step of the way. By working together, instead of against each other, we can achieve passage of this legislation.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in introducing the Head Start for School Readiness Act. Head Start programs are critical to ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, enter school ready to learn and succeed. I want to thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for his ongoing commitment to our bipartisan approach, which has resulted in a bill that meets the needs of children and families who participate in the Head Start program throughout our Nation. I would also like to thank our colleagues Senators Alexander and Dodd and their staff for their fine work as well. This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and help ensure that children in this important program will be better prepared to enter school with the skills to succeed. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. Head Start provides early education for over 900,000 children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere. It is because of these 900,000 children we have all worked so hard to improve and strengthen this Act. I am particularly pleased with the accountability provisions we put forth in this legislation. The legislation we introduce today limits the timeframe for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe or misusing Federal funds--and are often continuing those bad practices for months, as long as 600 days in some cases--during the termination process. This equates to children not receiving quality services, and instead of being prepared for success, they fall further behind. Additional steps have been taken in this legislation to increase the quality of the Head Start program including providing the Secretary the authority to terminate a grantee that has multiple and recurring deficiencies that has not made significant and substantial progress toward correcting those deficiencies. We recognize that a vast majority of the Head Start agencies provide high quality, comprehensive services for children in the Head Start programs. However, the provisions in this bill will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, and in the best interest of the children they serve. Senator Dodd has provided valuable leadership as we worked to develop a clear policy on the roles and responsibilities of the governing body and policy councils. We have worked together to clarify and strengthen the roles of the governing body and policy councils. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned. The bill clarifies those responsibilities leading to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best possible way. I want to particularly note emphasis we have placed on the role of parents in Head Start programs. It is vital to remember that this program provides services to children and their families. Parents provide valuable insight and experience as to what a Head Start program should do for children. Senators Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd have worked tirelessly on this legislation and championed increasing coordination, collaboration, and excellence in early childhood education and care programs. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senators Kennedy, Alexander, and Dodd, for their work in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come. It is my hope that our bipartisan efforts will continue to produce results as we move the bill through the Senate and into Conference.