Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 1, at 10 a.m., on the nominations of Shana Dale, to be Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mark Rosenker, to be Member, National Transportation Safety Board, and Kathryn Higgins, to be Member, of the National Transportation Safety Board,

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial and Executive Nominations'' on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senator, R-AK; and The Honorable Mitch McConnell United States Senator, R-KY. Panel II: Erick Nicholas Vitaliano to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Gregory F. Van Tatenhove to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Joseph Frank Bianco to be United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York; and Timothy Mark Burgess to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tec Chapman be allowed to be on the floor during the remainder of this bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it doesn't seem all that long ago that one of our most popular television shows featured a detective with a catch phrase that soon became part of our national vocabulary. When questioning someone who was offering more opinions than observations he would often interrupt and say, ``Just the facts.'' Those few words sum up the history of a publication that has grown from an in-depth look at World War II to an incredible collection of all forms of data that covers just about everything from the beginnings of recorded history to the exploration of the furthest ranges of our universe. Sixty-five years ago, Facts on File World News Digest was founded in 1940 by three emigrants from Hitler's Europe who knew there would be a need for a publication devoted to the issues of World War II. They had witnessed the rise of Nazism in the 1930s and recognized the need for a U.S.-based publication that focused on both world and domestic news events in the years leading up to World War II. Their first issue dealt with the presidential race between Roosevelt and Wilkie and their first bound volume of the events of the day was written, as described in the forward, as an effort to provide a clear and concise guide to help the reader navigate through a ``hopeless maze of thousands of facts.'' Nowadays, by comparison, we are deluged by tens of millions of facts and other pieces of data from around the world almost every day. Through it all, Facts on File has continued to sift the trivial from the significant and put together volume after volume of written information placing the facts about a myriad of subjects online and at our fingertips. Facts on File World News Digest was originally conceived as a source of information for radio and news journalists. Today, it serves an ever widening group of people who need quick and easy access to the basic facts about an endless list of items. Teachers rely on the publications for their lesson plans. Students rely on the easy access their database provides them for help with their homework, background for their papers, or just to encourage a genuine curiosity about the history of the world around them and how things work. Weekly Reader, which is now a part of the Facts on File family, took a poll of its readers recently. They discovered that almost 70 percent of today's students reported that they look for and find most of the facts they need for their homework on the Internet. Their use of the latest technology was the good news. The bad news was they often do not question the material they find or use another source to double check it. They just assume what they have found is correct. That is why it is so vitally important that we make sure our children, students and researchers have access to online materials on the web that put a premium on facts--not opinions. For that reason and so many more, Facts on File World News Digest will continue to be a priceless treasure trove of information, providing access to its databases and the wealth of knowledge they store with students, teachers, and government entities across the country. As the old adage says so well, we're entitled to our own opinions, we're just not entitled to our own facts. Facts on File has been working for 65 years to make sure the record is clear so that those who use their publications as a source get it right the first time. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I like to say that education is our middle name. Facts on File, and the family of publications it includes, has been a very valuable component of our education system for some time. I appreciate and congratulate them on a remarkable record of success. It's good to know that a resource exists that can provide our children with the data they need to supplement their studies, a resource that does its best, like the detective I referred to earlier, to provide ``just the facts.'' (At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments of Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, and others on the floor, discussing the importance of this biodefense legislation in the overall response to bird flu and other potential infectious diseases. I express special thanks to Senator Burr and Senator Kennedy for their help on the subcommittee that has been in charge of this, for the extensive hearings they have had, which have included a number of meetings many of us attended with experts from around the world who deal with these problems, and for coming up with a comprehensive solution that will address whatever happens to come up, whether it is avian flu, SARS, or some other pandemic we have not envisioned yet. We have a bill that was reported out of the committee a little over a week ago that deals with that comprehensive response. I am hoping everybody will take a look at the work we did on that. Again, I want to express my thanks to Senator Burr for his work and the leadership he has provided. One of the key principles of that legislation is that our response activities must be more broadly focused, not focused solely on the latest, newly emerging disease. So that, even if bird flu never becomes a pandemic, we will be prepared for the next infectious disease, as I mentioned, perhaps even a new SARS outbreak. The money spent will not be wasted because the process that will be set up will be able to handle a wide range of things. Given that, I believe the additional funding for a potential flu pandemic should be focused on broader response activities. In examining the initial amendment proposed by Senator Harkin, and as Senator Kennedy discussed on the floor yesterday, the overall funding was intended for stockpiling antivirals, strengthening public health responses, increasing global health surveillance, dramatically increasing the vaccine infrastructure, improving hospital preparedness, including surge capacity and health information technology systems, and other key elements. These elements are broader than bird flu. If targeted appropriately and implemented properly, it will mean that we Americans will be better prepared for whatever new infectious disease comes our way, not just bird flu. That is why I have worked with Senator Harkin to come up with an amendment that clarifies we are going for the broader picture that all of us worked on in committee. I was pleased with the unanimous response we had for getting it out of committee. So rather than the funding provided in the Labor, HHS bill being for a very limited thing, we want to focus on the broader context we have all worked on and agreed on, for the most part. We will be bringing a bill to the floor, I hope, to cover this in great detail and then a second bill that will deal with public health. I appreciate the work Senator Harkin has done on this and the way he has brought it to the attention of the American public. I appreciate the work of Senator Burr on this to have a bill that actually does this comprehensively. I also appreciate the way people are working together to come up with a safe, secure United States. I particularly thank the Senator from Texas for her indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENZI. Of course.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in the introduction of a bill to continue our efforts to provide relief for the school children whose lives have been uprooted by Hurricane Katrina and for the all of the schools that were affected by the storm--those along the gulf coast and those who have generously taken in displaced students across the country. I would first like to thank my colleagues, Senator Alexander, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Dodd, who have joined me today to explain our intent in crafting this legislation. I am pleased that we were able to work together to develop and introduce this bipartisan compromise. The bill provides relief for displaced students in a time of crisis, without opening political or ideological battles.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as my colleagues and I have made clear, we have come together in a spirit of bipartisan compromise to accomplish a common goal. This bill will provide the relief necessary to support the instruction and services that students displaced by this terrible storm need in order to continue their education, regardless of whether it was a public school or a nonpublic school that opened its doors to a given student. Mr. President, we hope that our colleagues in the Senate will work quickly with us to pass this bill and put these to work providing an education to our children as soon as possible. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues Senators Alexander, Kennedy and Dodd in the introduction of the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act. This bill is a comprehensive legislative approach to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of students who have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina. We have developed a bill that includes strategies to meet the immediate needs of those students, families and communities that have been affected by the heavy toll that Hurricane Katrina exacted from the gulf region, and the States that have responded with help. My top concern was to make sure that all the displaced students get back into school so that they can continue their education. Returning to school gives children a sense of routine that is important in assuring them that things will return to normal. School provides them with access to a support system of friends and teachers, which is invaluable as they and their families continue to come to grips with the aftereffects of the storm. With this bill we have attempted to address the needs that have been identified by the impacted communities directly affected by the storm as well as by those communities across the country that received the displaced students. The bill provides support for all displaced students, ensures accountability, and is fiscally responsible. In addition to the support for displaced students in both public and non-public schools, the bill includes provisions for supplemental services, restart services for schools in the most heavily impacted states, teacher and paraprofessional reciprocity, and assistance for homeless youth and displaced adolescent students. This bill is a bipartisan product that reflects what we heard from over 100 representatives of the education community and what we saw firsthand in the areas devastated by the storm. This is a daunting task as we have limited resources, but are faced with an almost unlimited need. We must focus our efforts on ensuring that the educational needs of the children affected by this unprecedented emergency are addressed. I believe that this legislation achieves that goal.

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENZI. Certainly.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would just like to echo the sentiments of the senior Senator from Connecticut. We have all agreed and have explicitly stated in the bill, that the level and type of assistance we are providing to both public and nonpublic schools is being authorized solely because of the unprecedented nature of the crisis, the massive dislocation of students, and the short duration of the assistance.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I will go through the GOP alternatives again. They ought to be bipartisan alternatives. I am afraid in previous discussions they got polarized in spite of changes to the extent that some god policy initiatives that deserve bipartisan support will never have support from the other side. That would be a tragedy. When the opposition says that my amendment does not have a minimum wage increase, I wonder what bill he is looking at. My bill has a $1.10 increase over the same period of time as his, although I think he is going to make a small change to his bill because there is a slight paperwork problem--but since it is the first-time paperwork problem it probably ought to be forgiven, just like my proposal would forgive small business first-time paperwork errors. What we are talking about is six provisions that soften the blow of the increased mandate on small businesses. First, permit family flextime for workers. Employees have the option of flexing their schedules over a 2-week period so they can work more hours 1 week and take hours off the next. The argument we have heard is that we are cutting overtime pay. If flextime is a pay cut, then Senator Kennedy and many of the Senate Democrats have voted to inflict pay cuts on workers. If flextime is wrong, then so was former President Clinton in 1994 when he extended it to all Federal employees because it increased effectiveness and job satisfaction and decreased turnover rates and absenteeism, the same thing it will do in the private sector. Why cannot somebody married to a Federal employee have the same advantage the Federal employee has? Second, it would increase small business exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have had, since the 1960s, the small business exemption has applied to businesses with $500,000 in receipts. This exemption amount has lagged behind inflation. The small business exemption should be at about $1.5 million. We are only raising it to $1 million. Every Federal labor law has a small business threshold. To the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was 15 employees. For the Family and Medical Leave Act, the threshold is 50 employees. Proponents minimum wage increases assert it is necessary to adjust the minimum wage to account for inflation. For the same reason, it only makes sense to adjust a small business threshold as well. The real value adjusted for inflation of the small business exemption established in the 1960s exceeds $1.5 million. Senator Kennedy uses his benchmark as the minimum wage rate for the same era. The Republican proposal is restrained and reasonable. The third issue is relief for small business, one-time paperwork errors. Small business people making paperwork errors would receive an automatic forgiveness for the first mistake in paperwork matters. It applies only to routine administrative paperwork requirements imposed on small business by the Federal Government. This is commonsense protection for small businesses from the otherwise ``gotcha'' mentality of Government inspectors and only applies to businesses with spotless records who immediately correct the unintentional mistakes. My amendment also gives small businesses regulatory relief by increasing federal agencies compliance, review, and enforcement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It requires better compliance assistance for small businesses. Federal Government officials have given too often short shrift to the existing requirement to solicit public compliance guidelines. The Republican package includes specific provisions that the Government Accounting Office suggested to improve the clarity of these requirements. Another provision of my amendment relates to the minimum wage tip credit for restaurant workers. This is so the restaurant can be sure all employees are being treated fairly, not just the high tip employees. We also have small business tax relief in the form of simplified cash accounting methods for small businesses. It will mean they do not have to see accountants as often. As an accountant, I think that is a good idea. It gives quicker depreciation for restaurants, who are a major employer for low skilled workers, and all of the tax provisions are fully offset. The very modest tax cuts were targeted directly to businesses most likely to have minimum wage workers. Remember that in spite of the rhetoric, this amendment increases the minimum wage in the same amount and on the same dates that Senator Kennedy's two-page proposal does. The difference is that my amendment attempts to smooth some of the bumps for those employers who will be most adversely affected by the increase. These tax benefits will help small businesses that employ low-skills workers survive without drastic cuts in employment. We are trying to help the small business so that they will be able to afford the increase in the minimum wage. It is not an easy thing to come to the Senate and ask for a minimum wage increase. I am sure Senator Kennedy knows that. He has been working on it a long time. I appreciate he dropped it back to what the Republicans were asking for earlier and what we have in my proposal at the present time. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you. I still have two provisions that I need to run through, and I wanted to make sure I got underway on that before my time expires. The fifth provision in my amendment is extending the restaurant employee tip credit. The food service industry relies on what is called a tip credit, which allows an employer to apply a portion of an employee's tip income--income they are getting on the job--against the employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage. To protect the tipped employees, current law requires that a tip credit cannot reduce an employee's wages below the required minimum wage. Employees report tips to the employer because the employer has to report it. Tips that are earned are reported. We have a few States that do not allow a tip credit. Increases in the Federal minimum wage would require raises for all affected employees in all States. Lack of a tip credit in some States could result in employers having to give raises to what are often are their most highly compensated employees--the tipped staff. As a result the nontipped employees are negatively impacted by the mandated flow of scarce labor dollars to the tip positions. In addition, the employers in these States are put at a competitive disadvantage with their colleagues and the rest of the country that can allocate employee compensation in a more equitable manner. I must also note that my amendment clarifies that the tip credit provision does not apply all parts of a State wage law. That argument that was used the last time the tip credit was brought up. That is clarified in this amendment. That should not be an argument anymore. The tip credit provision applies only in States that do not have a tip credit; and, only to the minimum wage portion of that State's overall wage hour law. The sixth and final provision in my amendment is one which provides small business tax relief. As I noted before, some of the people who pay the most taxes in the United States are small business owners. Even the money that business owners put back into the business to reinvest has to have the taxes paid on it. That is at the highest tax rate in the country. If we are going to impose even greater burdens on small businesses, we should give them some tax relief at the same time. My amendment would extend small business expensing. It would simplify cash accounting methods that make it a little easier for them to do their accounting, and it would provide restaurant depreciation relief. All of these tax provisions are fully offset. In total, the additional provisions of my amendment are intended to mitigate the small business impact of a $1.10 increase in the minimum wage. These steps are a partial way in which the cost of a minimum wage increase can be addressed. They will help the businesses that must absorb these increased costs. I share the view of many of my colleagues regarding such an increase on the Federal level. We must do our best to soften the blow. This may be the best means to that end. I would also encourage all of my colleagues to look at the true root of the problem of minimum wage workers, and that is minimum skills. We all share the same goal--I don't think anybody can deny that--and that is to help American workers find and keep well-paying jobs. I am even going beyond that. I hope they get to own their own businesses. We must, however, realize that minimum skills--not minimum wages--is the problem. Education and training will solve that problem and lead to the kind of increased wages and better jobs we all want to create for the Nation's workers. Let us work together to get that Workforce Investment Act passed, and go to conference. We didn't get that done 2 years ago. Without the conference, those 900,000 people a year that could be getting paid a higher amount are not. We need to get it passed and get it conferenced. We need to get the President to sign it, and as a result, higher skills and training will be accelerated, and wages in this country will go up. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and support my amendment that raises the wage by the same amount, but then has additional provisions, that provides small business benefits and soften the impact of the increases on the businesses that will have to pay them. If you are interested in small business, you need to support my amendment. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. I rise to summarize my comments regarding the amendments and to urge my colleagues to cast a vote against the Kennedy amendment and in favor of the minimum wage amendment I have offered. What is before the Senate are two amendments that raise the minimum wage by the same amount, $1.10 over 18 months. The difference between the bills is that the Kennedy amendment, while raising the minimum wage the same amount as my amendment, fails to acknowledge that any raise in the minimum wage has some negative consequences on the employers, particularly small employers, who must find the means to pay for the increase. The fact is that a negative economic impact on a small employer will probably result in a negative impact on that small employer's employees. This is an important aspect. When you give a pay increase, you have to find a way to pay for it. My amendment recognizes that reality and provides some relief for those employers. It should be borne in mind these employers, particularly small employers, are the source of the vast majority of jobs that are held by minimum wage workers. We have to continue to keep these businesses viable and growing as a source of job creation. As I said before, I wish for the people working in those places to be the ones owning the business, and I have shared some examples of how that happens. I ask that everyone bear in mind it is little solace to an individual earning minimum wage to learn that the minimum wage is increased but that he or she no longer has a job at which she can now earn the higher wage, or that it is not worth anything anymore because inflation took it away. It is for this reason my amendment contains not only the same increase as Senator Kennedy's amendment but includes provisions designed to soften the blow and ensure that those most-affected businesses continue to create jobs and entry-level, low-skilled employment opportunities. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and to vote in favor of the more balanced and comprehensive approach to the minimum wage which is represented by my amendment. I ask for a unanimous consent request that following the scheduled votes at 4:30 the Senate proceed to the vote in relation to the motion to suspend the rules in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 2078, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote. I further ask that Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 5 minutes prior to the start of the scheduled votes.

Mr. ENZI. I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment. Both amendments have the $1.10 minimum wage increase in them. But only my amendment provides for some way to offset that mandate so that small businesses which employ minimum wage workers can afford the minimum wage. My colleague's amendment will harm small businesses' economic growth and job creation. It would raise the cost for small businesses without providing any relief to soften the blow, forcing employers to make difficult choices, such as raising prices, reducing employee benefits, or terminating employees. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. My amendment protects small businesses' economic growth and job creation. As I said, they both raise the minimum wage by $1.10, to $6.25, in two steps of 55 cents over 18 months. My amendment recognizes and addresses the fact that all minimum wage increases have certain costs. My amendment protects against the negative impact of this wage hike on small businesses, the biggest source of job creation. This proposal is responsible and reasonable and designed not to dislocate or unintentionally harm workers. I ask you to support my amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote for my amendment, which raises the minimum wage level by the same amount as the previous amendment. The reason this amendment deserves your support whereas the last one did not is that my amendment has some small business offsets that will actually give them a chance to be able to pay the minimum wage increase without having to lay people off, without having to accept some other alternatives that would be very detrimental to employees. This amendment helps the small business people that employ minimum wage workers by giving them some tax breaks which are all offset. This amendment also includes five other good policy initiatives which I have mentioned previously in great detail. I would ask that you vote for this amendment and provide small businesses with the help they need to be able to afford a minimum wage increase.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with, since copies have been given to both sides.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to bring to the floor an amendment to H.R. 3204, The State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2005. The Senate companion, S. 288, sponsored by Senators Gregg and Baucus, was approved unanimously in February by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. A similar bill also unanimously passed the full Senate in the last Congress. The amendment to H. R. 3204 that I bring before us today reflects much careful and bipartisan work, not only within the Senate, but with the House as well. After we pass this amendment and send it to the House, I expect our colleagues in that Chamber will approve it quickly, thus paving the way for a swift trip to the President's desk and into law. This legislation extends and makes improvements in the Federal Health Insurance High Risk Pool Grant Program originally enacted in 2002 as part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act, TAA. This grant program provides critical assistance States both for the start-up of new risk pools and for the continued operation of existing ones. State high risk pools are State-created nonprofit entities that provide access to health insurance for persons who are not covered under an employer plan or a government program, and whose medical profile makes it very difficult or impossible for them to find coverage in the individual insurance market. These individuals are often the sickest and most vulnerable among us, and who, without access to high risk pools would otherwise fall through the cracks and be forced to bankrupt themselves onto the Medicaid rolls. Nearly 200,000 people have purchased health insurance policies through high risk pools nationwide. In my home State of Wyoming more than 650 people have comprehensive health insurance thanks to the Wyoming Health Insurance Pool. This insurance covers doctor visits, prescription drugs, home health visits, rehabilitation services, mental health, physical therapy, and maternity care. It is meaningful insurance coverage for people who would otherwise be uninsurable. Under these programs, individuals pay capped premiums for their coverage, but such premiums generally cover only 50 to 60 percent of the total cost of their care. The rest of the expense must be made up by other revenues, typically through an annual assessment of insurance companies. The current Federal Risk Pool Grant Program authorized up to $40 million annually to help existing State high risk pools ease the steep losses requiring subsidies that they incur in these programs each year. Last year alone, total combined losses in State risk pools was more than $539 billion, an increase of 12 percent over the previous year. The legislation before us today would increase authorization for grants to existing risk pool programs from $40 million to $75 million per year through 2009. It would also extend through 2006 authorization for $15 million annually for seed grants to States without risk pools that wish to establish them. Under this program, States would be eligible for grants of up to $1 million for the creation and initial operation of a risk pool. It is critical that Congress act swiftly on this important bill. Authorization for the current grant program expired at the end of fiscal year 2004, and all remaining funds will be exhausted upon the expiration of fiscal year 2005. Moreover, many State legislatures are assessing whether or not to move ahead with risk pool programs. Passage of this legislation would send to the States a strong signal of continued and renewed Federal commitment to such programs. In addition to extending and increasing authorization for Federal grant assistance, our legislation also makes a certain targeted improvements in how the Federal risk pool grants operate. For example, the bill would allow States a greater degree of flexibility in how they apply Federal grant dollars to their risk pool programs, and in the requirements for qualifying for grants. In part, this greater flexibility is an acknowledgement that State programs do vary and that a number of States are experimenting with new and innovative approaches in how they set up and administer their risk pool programs--approaches that in some cases may not fit easily into the Federal grant parameters as they are currently drafted. The legislation also makes some adjustments in the way grant funds are allocated, such that each State will now receive a sufficient incentive to establish or improve its high risk pool. At the same time, the revised allocation system recognizes that some states have greater numbers of uninsured than others, and provides extra assistance to States that operate the largest risk pools. The bill also includes a new bonus pool that can be tapped by States to offer lower premiums or improved benefits in connection with their high-risk pool, rather than requiring that all funds go to help defray operational losses. Up to one third of State's annual grant award could be used for this purpose. The legislation before us today is the same as that which drew unanimous and bipartisan support in our committee, both in this Congress and the last. It would extend and improve a program that has helped thousands of medically vulnerable Americans maintain lifesaving health coverage and avoid potentially devastating financial ruin. It is an important part of this Congress's comprehensive efforts to make health care and health insurance more affordable and accessible for everyone. I commend Senators Gregg and Baucus for their effective leadership on this important legislation, and to our committee's ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for his hard work and commitment. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in giving this much needed legislation our full support. Finally, credit should go as well to a number of current and past Senate staff, some of whom have worked for several years to bring this bill to fruition. We greatly appreciate the work of many, including David Bowen, David Fisher, Kim Monk, Stephen Northrup, Andrew Patzman, Stacey Sachs, Conwell Smith, and Vince Ventimiglia. I urge the Senate to give this much needed legislation the strong support it deserves.