Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about several of the personal problems currently being experienced by some military families due to the deployment of one or both parents and to introduce three pieces of legislation, the language of which is included in the recently passed House of Representatives Defense authorization bill, which are designed to help alleviate those problems. But first, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, and the sons and daughters of our Nation, who in these very tumultuous and dangerous times have volunteered to join our Armed Forces and serve our country around the world. In December 1776, another of the tumultuous times for our Nation, Thomas Paine wrote ``These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.'' Our modern day Patriots, who are now serving in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard, also heard and answered our country's call and they surely deserve the love and thanks of our Nation. In some cases, while a military parent is deployed overseas, courts have overturned custody arrangements of their child or children; this while the deployed military custodial parent was unable to appear before the court. The first piece of legislation, S. 1658, would provide protection of child custody arrangements for Armed Forces parents who are deployed in contingency operations. The legislation states that if a motion for change of custody of a child of a servicemember is filed while the servicemember is deployed in support of a contingency operation, no court may enter an order modifying or amending any previous judgment or order, or issue a new order that changes the child custody arrangement that existed as of the deployment date. An exception is allowed whereby the court may enter a temporary custody order if there is clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. Additionally, if a motion for the change of custody of the child of a servicemember who was deployed in support of a contingency operation is filed after the end of the deployment, no court may consider the absence of the servicemember by reason of that deployment in determining the best interest of the child. The second piece of legislation, S. 1659, is intended to preclude some of the tension and anxiety that a child may suffer from the simultaneous deployment of both parents, as well as the grief that would result if both those parents were to lose their lives while simultaneously deployed. This bill would provide a limitation on simultaneous deployment to combat zones of dual-military couples who have minor dependents. It states that in the case of a member of the Armed Forces with minor dependents who has a spouse who is also a member of the Armed Forces, and the spouse is deployed in an area for which imminent danger pay is authorized, the member may request a deferment of a deployment to such an area until the spouse returns from such deployment. And the third piece of legislation, S. 1660, would initiate studies that could hopefully lead to improved support services for families of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are undergoing deployment. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of possible methods to enhance support services for children of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are deployed. Additionally, the legislation would require the Pentagon to carry out a study on establishment of a program on family-to-family support for families of deployed members of the National Guard and Reserve. Mr. President, I ask that my fellow Senators consider these bills.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, today there is a great deal of debate about how Americans are doing, in particular those considered low income. I rise today to dispel a major misconception about the progress of low-income Americans. Those on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that when one person does better it must be at the expense of another. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when Congress adopts policies that encourages individuals to work harder, save, take risks, and invest more, the economy does better and everyone benefits. Two recent studies I requested from CBO prove a rising tide does lift all boats. The first report issued in December, entitled ``Changes in Low Wage Labor Markets Between 1979 and 2005,'' found that the inflation adjusted hourly earnings of U.S. workers was 10 percent higher now than back in 1979. Since 1990 those in the bottom 10th percentile of wage earners witnessed their inflation adjusted wages increase 12.8 percent, more than 2.5 percentage points faster than those in the statistical middle. CBO's second report entitled ``Changes in the Economic Resources of Low-Income Households with Children'' indicates that poor households with children experienced real earnings gains of 80 percent since 1991, outpacing even those in the top income quintile whose earnings grew 54 percent. This fact is even more amazing viewed in the context of welfare reform. Those opposing welfare reforms in the mid 1990s argued that limiting direct Government assistance and requiring low-income people to work more would prove to be disastrous. However, low-income households with children now rely less on the Government, are more self reliant and have a higher standard of living. In 1991, low-income households relied on the Government for a majority of their income with earnings accounting for just 49 percent. Today, low-income households earn 65 percent of their income and rely on Government assistance for the remainder. Female headed households also rely less on the Government for their livelihood. In 1991, 35 percent of their income was earned compared with 54 percent now. The share of their income derived from AFDC or TANF fell from 42 percent in 1991 to 7 percent in 2005. These two studies prove that when the Government interferes less in the lives of its citizens, they are more productive. Once unencumbered by Government, people are motivated to work harder, save, and invest more.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Honorable Jeffrey S. Merrifield will be leaving the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, on June 30, 2007. Originally from Antrim, NH, Jeff Merrifield has served as a member of the Commission since October 23, 1998. First appointed by President Clinton, Jeff was reappointed by President Bush and was sworn in for a second term on August 5, 2002. After a distinguished government career at the NRC and on Capitol Hill, Jeff Merrifield has chosen to pursue endeavors in the private sector. Throughout his tenure at the NRC, Jeff Merrifield has invested considerable time in familiarizing himself with the operations of NRC licensees, visiting all 104 operating power reactors in the United States, as well as numerous nuclear materials facilities and sites undergoing decommissioning. Jeff actively supported initiatives to improve the transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of NRC regulatory programs. He headed an NRC Communications Task Force charged with initiating and implementing many recommendations to improve agency internal and external communications. Jeff also led an interagency task force of fifteen departments and agencies to identify gaps in the control and use of radiation source materials as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Recommendations of this task force were detailed in a report to the President and Congress. Jeff Merrifield has advocated a vision of excellence in regulating the safe and secure uses of nuclear material for the public good. A participant in the development of NRC's Strategic Plan, he championed a number of significant regulatory improvements, including efforts to risk-inform regulations, provide discipline in staff review of applications for license renewal, and prepare the agency for potential new power reactor applications. Recently Jeff chaired a Combined License Review Task Force which made a number of recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the review of new reactor applications. He was the leading advocate for the use of the alternate dispute resolution process in agency enforcement actions and has taken a special interest in improving the management of decommissioning funding. As an NRC Commissioner, Jeff Merrifield was actively involved in the agency's post September 11, 2001, response activities. These actions resulted in a significant improvement in security at NRC licensed facilities. Both before and since the terrible events of 9/11, NRC licensed power reactors are some of the best protected facilities in the civilian community. Recognizing the NRC's influence in the international regulatory community, Jeff has traveled abroad to discuss policy issues with nuclear regulators and foreign dignitaries in more than 35 countries and has toured more than 140 nuclear reactors overseas. In 2005, he led an NRC delegation to India for the fifth bilateral exchange between the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and the NRC. This was the first visit to India by a member of the Commission following President Bush's initiative ``Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership'' with India. Jeff was also the major advocate for the establishment of a three-nation agreement with Canada and Mexico on nuclear materials and waste issues through periodic trilateral meetings. Mr. President, please join me in thanking Jeff Merrifield for his dedicated service to the American people and in wishing him and his family all the best in their future pursuits.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow me to ask unanimous consent to be recognized at the conclusion of his remarks?

Mr. GREGG. Of course.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the presentation of the Senator from Massachusetts which, as always, was extraordinary. He is one of the people I admire around here the most because he has been such an extraordinary force. Even though I disagree with him so often, I still admire him immensely. How he has maintained the energy and commitment to his causes over such a long period of time is beyond me. I certainly could not do it. One just has to respect that ability. He is clearly one of the great legislators in the history of this body. In fact, I wish he were not quite so great on many occasions. In any event, much of what he says makes sense on this issue. His commitment to it is obviously intense and thorough, and I admire it. The point he makes, which is that we now have a dysfunctional system and there is basically chaos within the immigration system in this country relative to illegal immigrants being in this country and the borders remaining regrettably reasonably porous--although they have tightened up over the last few years--is very legitimate. This bill is an attempt to genuinely address those issues in a number of areas. I have made the point throughout the discussion of this bill that from my standpoint, a good piece of immigration legislation has to accomplish essentially four things. First, it has to make the borders secure. There is no reason we cannot secure the southern border. The northern border is a bigger problem because of its length and its topography, but the southern border can be secured. As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations and prior to that as chairman of the Commerce-State-Justice Subcommittee, I tried to commit major new resources in this effort. There was a consensus to do that and a bipartisan effort to do that, and we have dramatically expanded the number of agents on the border, the technology on the border, and the detention bed capability. But we still have a ways to go. Actually, the first or second amendment adopted--it seems like an ion ago, but it was only a week ago--was an amendment I offered to this bill which would bring the commitment in numbers in this bill in the area of Border Patrol agents, in the area of detention beds, in the area of electronic fencing and regular fencing along the border up to what was the consensus position as to what was needed to secure the border. So this bill now has in it the necessary language. The question is, do we have the capacity to put that in place. But that goes back to the trigger which is in this bill, and the trigger in the bill says, until that is in place, none of the other language can go into force which deals with guest worker and illegal immigrants and how we regularize their status in this country. So I believe that issue has been effectively addressed in this bill, and with the amendment I offered and put in the proper position-- although more can be done in the area of how one defines ``trigger,'' and certainly there are proposals going around here which will be voted on which I will support that will deal with the funding--it makes sure funding cannot dry up as a result of the annual discretionary process. That has been addressed. The second issue is we have to have an effective guest worker program, and to have an effective guest worker program, we have to address the third issue. And the third issue is that we have enforcement at the employee- employer meeting place, so the employer is hiring people effectively in this country legally and not able to hire illegal aliens, people who come into this country illegally. Those two issues are intertwined, and the bill does address the issue of employment through strict enforcement and the requirement of identification cards, which is going to be very difficult to accomplish, but again it is a trigger. Nothing in this bill goes forward, as I understand it, until that trigger is met. Second is the guest worker program. There is no way we can have an effective immigration process unless we take some of the pressure off of the fact we have an economy that demands people to work in this economy above and beyond what we have as a citizenry in our country today. There simply is a demand in our Nation for people to come here and work, and it should be done under a guest worker program so that those folks who come here, work, and go back know they are coming here to participate in the worker program, not to be here permanently. That will relieve the pressure at the border significantly if we have that. It is a big part of border security and, of course, is important not only from a standpoint of controlling who comes into the country, but it is critically important from the standpoint of dealing with the threats we face as a country from terrorism. An effective guest worker program is critical. Fortunately, as this bill was originally drafted, it did have such a program. It had a guest worker with a significant number of guest workers, 400,000 every year. It had a guest worker program that was properly structured. Unfortunately, as a result of the amendment process around here, that guest worker program has been fundamentally undermined, and in its present structure, as was pointed out last night when the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota was adopted, that was, somebody called it a killer amendment, a fatal amendment to this bill. If it stays in place, it makes the guest worker program essentially useless. All we are going to be able to do is bring guest workers in for agricultural activity, and they will be limited in that area; and guest workers needed in other functions of the economy, whether it is the resort industry or simply in the day-to-day activities functioning as a nation, there is going to be pressure for them to come here illegally again, and that undermines the purpose of the bill. So unfortunately that was done. The Bingaman amendment prior to that purely did a lot of damage to the guest worker program. So that didn't work out as well as it should, but hopefully it can be corrected. The fourth element I have talked about is how you deal with this pathway, how you deal with the issue of who are here illegally. We are not going to, as a practical matter, take 12 million people, or maybe even 15 million, who are here illegally, assuming we could even find them, and deport them. That is simply not going to happen in our culture. We wouldn't tolerate it. As a practical matter, we couldn't do it. So what we need to do is figure out some way to get those people out from behind the shadows so they are publicly identified as being here, not only from the standpoint of dealing with them but from the standpoint of a national need of knowing who is here for reasons of national security. So this bill attempts to do that. The bill has some flaws in that area, but it also has some strengths in that area, and they have been previously outlined. The discussion on that has been extensive, so I will not get into the specifics. But those four items, for me, were the test of how this bill goes forward. As a corollary to those four items, however, is the theme behind immigration, which I think is critical, and which there is specific language in this bill which needs to be dealt with. One of the themes behind immigration, besides having a secure border and a guest worker program that works and making sure we take the pressure off having people coming into this country illegally, is the need to go around the world and take the best and the brightest who want to come to America and let them in to participate in our economy and make our economy more vibrant. We have had hearings on this issue, and there is a certain obviousness to this issue. I mean, if somebody is in India or China-- and those are the examples most often used, but it could be Czechoslovakia or Poland--if somebody has an advanced degree of some nature or is highly educated and has the capacity to contribute to our economy--and who wants to come here--why would we want to leave that person in those countries as a competitor, when we can bring them here and have them actually be a job creator? We hear a lot about outsourcing in these debates that we have had over the last election cycle, where we are sending jobs overseas. If you bring a person who has unique talents that our Nation needs and that is an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, people who are already here, that creates jobs. That person is a job center. In fact, it was interesting. We had Bill Gates testify before our committee, and this is exactly what he said. Here is a guy who has probably done more to make the American economy vibrant over the last 20 or 25 years than any other person alive. I mean, he is an individual who essentially transformed our economy and made us the leader in the world in what was the leading issue in the world, which is technology. He comes before the committee and he comes before the country in general and he says: Listen, we need to bring these people here because they are being developed in these other countries; and if we don't bring them here--if they want to come here--and take advantage of their abilities, then they are going to do it somewhere else. I don't want the next Bill Gates to be in China or in India. I want the next Bill Gates to be right here in the United States creating jobs. The point is, when you bring these folks in, they create jobs here. So one of the programs where we have to do this is the H-1B program. This is a program where we say specifically, if there are companies in this country or businesses in this country or colleges in this country or educational facilities in this country that need talented people, and they can't get them here in this country--because we don't have the pool necessary--then they can bring people in from outside the country who have the talent to do those jobs. Most of this is in computer science. Most of the H-1B visas, 45 percent of the applications, are computer science people; with the next biggest group, about 11 percent, being teachers. So industries, businesses, entrepreneurs, colleges, and schools that need these folks to make their businesses work and to give them the opportunity to create jobs, whether it is in New Hampshire or Washington State or across this country, need to be able to attract these people into the country. But the H-1B program, for some reason, has opposition. It doesn't make any sense to me. I look across the aisle and I say: This should be a logical thing for both sides of the aisle to be supportive of. The concept of bringing in, insourcing jobs, as opposed to outsourcing jobs, should be very attractive to the other side of the aisle. The concept of bringing intelligent people here to create opportunities should be attractive to both sides of the aisle, but there seems to be some undercurrent that they are taking away American jobs. They aren't. In fact, they are adding to American jobs. As a matter of fact, the National Science Foundation has pointed out we need these types of people; that we are woefully short of the people in the math, science, and technology areas and are not producing the kinds of numbers we need to be out of our own university systems. So why not go overseas to see if we can find these people to come here and participate? In fact, there is such a demand for these people that, under the present law, they are allowed 65,000 of these applications every year, plus the 20,000 add-on for highly talented people. The first day the applicant process opened, on April 2, 140,000 applications came in to fill the 65,000 available slots. My own view is we should have taken all 140,000, if they were legitimate, and brought them here. I mean that probably multiplies 10 times. Probably a million and a half jobs could have been created with bringing those folks in here. But under the present law, we are limited. This bill represents that it increases that number from 65,000 to 115,000. But here is the problem. It knocks out the 20,000 specialists. So actually the increase is rather marginal compared to what we need in this country to take care of the concerns we have. Plus, unfortunately, this bill creates layer after layer of bureaucracy, in addition to the bureaucracy which already exists. It costs on top of the costs that already exist as a result of a number of amendments on this floor, which makes it more difficult to get these folks into the country. In addition, the bill creates a new standard which makes absolutely no sense--absolutely no sense--which says that the skill of the individual relative to talent--let us say a physicist, an astrophysicist--has to match up exactly with the job that is available. We have an incredibly fungible economy, and the requirement that the applicant who has an advanced degree, that his degree match identically with the job, is a new requirement and a hurdle that is unnecessary and is counterproductive to getting talent into this country. I don't understand why it is in here, and it should be taken out before it goes much further. Clearly, in our society, there is tremendous mobility within the disciplines. If you are trained as a physicist, an astrophysicist, you are going to be able to do a lot of things in our society and move within the job areas. Under the rules of the H-1B application, you have to be able to move in a way that you are not displacing Americans. That is just a very difficult issue, if we keep that in here. In addition, there have been attacks on the H-1B program to claim that there is ``warehousing'' of these types of folks. I guess that is probably a pejorative, but that is the term which is used, involving Indian companies that basically collect together a large number of people with these degrees and then basically get all the applications for H-1B and use them in that manner. This bill corrects that, but we continue to hear that complaint from folks on the other side of the aisle, not necessarily because they are on the other side of the aisle but because they oppose the H-1B program, because really that is a red herring. This bill corrects that issue. That should not be raised against this. We know for a fact we need these types of individuals in our country, and it is a huge advantage for us to draw them into this country. I hope before this bill goes much further that we correct the problems that are in this bill relative to the H-1B program and make it a much more expansive program and make it a much more flexible program and one that will allow us to bring these talented people here so they can create jobs and make this economy stronger along the lines of what Bill Gates suggested is necessary and which I strongly endorse. I know the junior Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has an amendment in this area. I have an amendment in this area. I have been going on the assumption that Senator Cantwell's, which is a little broader amendment than mine, would be the one that will go forward. I understand it is being held up on the other side. If that continues, it will be a problem for me. We at least deserve a vote on it, at the minimum, and I certainly hope that will occur. As a corollary to this discussion, I wish to highlight quickly a concern I have for the merit system. I think the merit system is exactly the approach we should take and the point system is exactly the approach we should take, but I still don't understand why somebody who has worked as an agricultural worker for 5 years gets the same number of points as somebody who has a physics degree--even more points, actually, than someone who has a physics degree. It seems to me, if you are going to weigh this properly in a merit system--we are not talking about a guest worker program here; we are talking about a merit system proposal. We are not talking about the AgJOBS proposals; we are talking about the merit system. In a merit system, what we should be looking for is talent and people whose abilities are unique and those which we need in this country. That is why there should not be this strange allocation of points which makes no sense at all in the context of the purpose of the merit system. I hope that will also be changed. On balance, of the things that concern me about this bill, two of them are moving in the right direction, which are border security and the issue of pathway. But the things that really concern me continue to be the guest worker program and how we are going to handle the H-1B issue. So the jury is still out, to put it quite simply, on this bill. There needs to be a lot more time spent on the amendment process so we can find out how we are going to end up working this bill through the process. This is a complex bill. It deserves significant time on the floor, and it deserves to have proper discussion with amendments that are put forward by people who did not happen to be in negotiations for the grand compromise. Those guys did a good job negotiating, but they didn't necessarily touch all the bases that are of concern to many of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, on behalf of Kathy and myself, we send our deepest condolences and expressions of sympathy to Susan and her family on Craig's passing. Susan and Craig were good friends of ours. Susan is and Craig still is. They are special people. They are people whom you like to call friends, the type of people who are there. And they had a special relationship. I don't know how many votes we cast together. It was a lot. Craig arrived 2 years after I had. We would walk out of this Chamber together very often, and Susan, because she was here in Washington, would almost always be right out there, right outside the door, with a great smile to greet us, even though we probably just lost the vote. Craig was special because, as has been mentioned and said so well by his partner Senator Enzi and his colleagues, Senator McConnell, Senator Inhofe, Senator Stevens, Senator Isakson, Senator Martinez, and the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and Senator Durbin, everybody respected him. You may not have agreed with him, but you could not help but respect him. He was quiet but accomplished and understood the issues. He was a man of inordinate common sense. When he would look at an issue, he would cut through all the puffery, all the theater, of which there is a fair amount around here, and he would get to the essence of the question. Then he would bring common sense to the question. Yes, it was common sense born out of a philosophy, which is our side of the aisle, which is conservative, but it was a common sense that cut across ideology most often because it was usually so obvious what the conclusion would be as presented by Craig. I had the great good fortune--I don't know how it happened, but it was good fortune for me--to end up spending almost every Tuesday lunch, where we do policy, and almost every Wednesday lunch, where we do steering and get together as Members of the Republican Senate to discuss whatever is happening, to sit beside Craig. We sort of gravitated to each other. That is sort of ironic, me being from New England and him from Wyoming, but I think there is a certain, hopefully, identity of our approaches to events. I am certainly proud to say that. The great fun about sitting beside Craig was that not only did he have this wonderful common sense, but he had an extraordinary sense of humor. He would listen to statements made, often by our leadership--I do not wish to be disparaging here; I am simply being kind--and he would make some smiling, thoughtful comment that was usually fairly humorous and a touch irreverent about comments made by our leadership as to what we should be doing. You couldn't help but laugh because he was a person who had a sense of self, a sense of humor, a focus on what was right and what was wrong and what life should be about. This disease attacked him, but honestly, you couldn't convince him that it attacked him. You would ask him how he was doing. He would say: I am OK. Even though you knew he was going through extraordinary pain, you would never, ever--at least I never, ever--hear him complain. He was a genuine marine in that sense. He will obviously be missed around here. He was a low-key person who had a high-level impact. I will certainly miss him. I will miss him at those lunches and I will miss seeing Susan outside the door. To Susan and his family, Kathy and I say: He was a great friend, and we will miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the United States spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized country and costs continue to rise. However, there is significant variation in the quality of health care consumers receive. Are we getting a good deal? The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act, which I have introduced today with Senator Clinton, seeks to improve U.S. health care by providing qualified private-sector organizations access to Medicare data for the development and release of reports on the quality, cost, efficiency and effectiveness of our health care system. Consumer groups, employers, insurance companies, labor unions and others have repeatedly requested access to Medicare data to improve the quality of the health care provided to their members, employees and beneficiaries and to help control the ever-rising costs of health care. While there remains legal debate over whether this data can be released, the Medicare Quality Enhancement Act ensures that the data collected by Medicare and paid for by the taxpayer can be utilized by qualified organizations to measure quality and control costs while protecting beneficiary privacy. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act of 2007: requires CMS to provide Medicare enrollment, claims, survey and assessment data to private sector Medicare Quality Reporting Organizations, MQROs, to develop reports to measure health care quality for the public; mandates the protection of beneficiary privacy; empowers consumer groups, providers, employers, insurance plans, labor unions and others to request reports from MQROs; and provides for the public release of all reports. Attempts are already being made by employers and insurance companies to measure quality. However, with limited amounts of privately held data, their analysis is not broad enough to provide the most accurate results. However, MQROs will have access to Medicare data and be authorized to aggregate both private and public data, providing a significantly more robust assessment of both quality and efficiency while requiring the complete protection of beneficiary health information. In order for America's health care system to improve, we need to know more and understand the quality of the care we are purchasing. The time has come for the health care community to compete on quality, value and cost, and not be rewarded simply for volume of care provided. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act ensures that the public will finally have the tools necessary to make informed health care decisions for themselves and their families.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the United States spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized country and costs continue to rise. However, there is significant variation in the quality of health care consumers receive. Are we getting a good deal? The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act, which I have introduced today with Senator Clinton, seeks to improve U.S. health care by providing qualified private-sector organizations access to Medicare data for the development and release of reports on the quality, cost, efficiency and effectiveness of our health care system. Consumer groups, employers, insurance companies, labor unions and others have repeatedly requested access to Medicare data to improve the quality of the health care provided to their members, employees and beneficiaries and to help control the ever-rising costs of health care. While there remains legal debate over whether this data can be released, the Medicare Quality Enhancement Act ensures that the data collected by Medicare and paid for by the taxpayer can be utilized by qualified organizations to measure quality and control costs while protecting beneficiary privacy. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act of 2007: requires CMS to provide Medicare enrollment, claims, survey and assessment data to private sector Medicare Quality Reporting Organizations, MQROs, to develop reports to measure health care quality for the public; mandates the protection of beneficiary privacy; empowers consumer groups, providers, employers, insurance plans, labor unions and others to request reports from MQROs; and provides for the public release of all reports. Attempts are already being made by employers and insurance companies to measure quality. However, with limited amounts of privately held data, their analysis is not broad enough to provide the most accurate results. However, MQROs will have access to Medicare data and be authorized to aggregate both private and public data, providing a significantly more robust assessment of both quality and efficiency while requiring the complete protection of beneficiary health information. In order for America's health care system to improve, we need to know more and understand the quality of the care we are purchasing. The time has come for the health care community to compete on quality, value and cost, and not be rewarded simply for volume of care provided. The Medicare Quality Enhancement Act ensures that the public will finally have the tools necessary to make informed health care decisions for themselves and their families.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues this morning especially in thanking and congratulating the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Tennessee for bringing forward this approach. There is no question but that we are going to begin disengaging from Iraq. The question is: Is that disengagement going to be done in a manner which strengthens our security as a nation or is it going to be done in a manner which undermines our security as a nation? Are we going to leave an Iraq which is stable enough to govern itself and maintain its own security and have a government that functions or are we going to leave an Iraq which becomes divided into warring factions which may lead to literally a genocidal event with an element of the country which is a client state for Iraq, an element of the country which is a safe haven for al-Qaida, and an element of the country which is perceived as a threat to Turkey? Clearly, we cannot precipitously abandon the people of Iraq or our own national interests in having a stable Iraq. So we need to look for a process which is going to allow us to proceed in an orderly way and in a way which, hopefully, can start to bring our own Nation together as we try to address this most difficult issue. Looking to the proposal of the Iraq Study Group is, in my opinion, the appropriate way to proceed. It is interesting that today we are going to see, I believe, the passage of a supplemental bill which will fund our soldiers in the field, which we absolutely have an obligation to do, which, after a lot of pulling and tugging and different ideas being put on the table, has reached a position which, hopefully, will have a consensus vote and will represent a majority which will be able to pass that bill and, thus, fund the soldiers in the field in a manner which has both sides working together, the Democratic leader having endorsed the language and the President having endorsed the language. But this agreement today which has in it the Warner language, which I supported, is a precursor to the next step, and the next step should be a broader coalition within our political process of developing a plan for disengagement from Iraq that assures the security of the United States and the stability of that country. Thus, I think the step which is being proposed today by the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Tennessee and is supported by the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Utah, and myself is an effort to set out a blueprint or a path which we can, hopefully, follow in a bipartisan way as we proceed down this road. The Iraq Study Group did this country an enormous service--former Congressman Hamilton and former Secretary of State Baker--in extensively studying the issue and coming back with very concrete and specific proposals as to how we can, hopefully, effectively deal with settling the Iraq situation. I congratulate both of these Senators for this initiative. I am happy to join in it. I look forward to it being the template upon which we build a broader coalition which I hope will be bipartisan and which I hope can settle a little of the differences which are so dividing our Nation and which will give not only the Iraqi people the opportunity to have a surviving, stable government, but will give ourselves the direction we need to assure our safety as we move forward in this very perilous time confronting terrorists who wish to do us harm. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, next month the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is expected to markup legislation creating a regulatory pathway for the approval of follow-on biologics, or ``biosimilars''. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue and would especially like to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership in this area. There are significant differences between small molecule drugs and larger protein derived therapeutic biologics. These differences are going to require a much more detailed and a much more complex approval pathway than the generic drug approval process. To protect patient safety, the FDA must be empowered to apply rigorous scientific standards to biosimilars seeking approval, while at the same time avoiding duplicative testing and unnecessary expense. Biological products are among the most promising and effective medicines for the treatment of serious and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately these medicines are often very expensive, and current U.S. law does not provide an abbreviated approval pathway for ``follow- on'' versions of these innovative products after key patents expire. Therefore, Congress should act so that patients can have access to less expensive versions of biologics, just as they do with generic small molecule drugs. In addition to the great benefits associated with biologic products, the American biotech industry has become the world leader in development of new therapies for serious or life-threatening illnesses. This will only continue as there are now at least 400 biologics currently in development. To preserve this incredibly innovative industry, biotechnology companies need to have a meaningful period of time to recoup the extraordinary expenses incurred in bringing these life-saving medicines to market. If not, U.S. based research and development of new biotech medicines will be threatened. Therefore, today I am introducing the Affordable Biologics for Consumers Act of 2007. It requires the FDA develop science-based rules for approval of biologics on a product-class basis. The legislation also provides 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator drug manufacturer products, with an additional 2 years available if the Secretary approves a new indication for the reference product. This legislation will ensure that patients have access to safe and affordable biologics, while protecting innovation and spurring the development of new life-saving therapies. I urge my colleagues to join me, and the many patient groups that have endorsed this legislation, in supporting this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, next month the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is expected to markup legislation creating a regulatory pathway for the approval of follow-on biologics, or ``biosimilars''. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue and would especially like to thank Senator Hatch for his leadership in this area. There are significant differences between small molecule drugs and larger protein derived therapeutic biologics. These differences are going to require a much more detailed and a much more complex approval pathway than the generic drug approval process. To protect patient safety, the FDA must be empowered to apply rigorous scientific standards to biosimilars seeking approval, while at the same time avoiding duplicative testing and unnecessary expense. Biological products are among the most promising and effective medicines for the treatment of serious and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately these medicines are often very expensive, and current U.S. law does not provide an abbreviated approval pathway for ``follow- on'' versions of these innovative products after key patents expire. Therefore, Congress should act so that patients can have access to less expensive versions of biologics, just as they do with generic small molecule drugs. In addition to the great benefits associated with biologic products, the American biotech industry has become the world leader in development of new therapies for serious or life-threatening illnesses. This will only continue as there are now at least 400 biologics currently in development. To preserve this incredibly innovative industry, biotechnology companies need to have a meaningful period of time to recoup the extraordinary expenses incurred in bringing these life-saving medicines to market. If not, U.S. based research and development of new biotech medicines will be threatened. Therefore, today I am introducing the Affordable Biologics for Consumers Act of 2007. It requires the FDA develop science-based rules for approval of biologics on a product-class basis. The legislation also provides 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator drug manufacturer products, with an additional 2 years available if the Secretary approves a new indication for the reference product. This legislation will ensure that patients have access to safe and affordable biologics, while protecting innovation and spurring the development of new life-saving therapies. I urge my colleagues to join me, and the many patient groups that have endorsed this legislation, in supporting this crucial piece of legislation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I understand I am next in order to offer an amendment.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Massachusetts is not ready to go to Senator Feinstein's amendment at this time, I suggest I offer mine and then we do the two amendments in sequence.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment, which is No. 1172.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the essence of this bill for most Americans, I believe, is the need and the desire to secure the border, to make sure that people coming across our border are coming across legally, that we know who they are, and that we are able to manage our border. It is a national disgrace that we have been unable to control the illegal flow of people into our country, especially the massive illegal flow of people across the southwestern border into this country. So I don't believe there is really ever going to be a consensus around major immigration reform, which I happen to strongly support. I supported last year's bill introduced by Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain. I support the effort this year in concept, although I still want to see how it is going to end up in detail. But there will never be a consensus support for major immigration reform, which we need so dearly in this country, unless the American people can be confident that the border is secure as the first condition of immigration reform. Thus, I think it was really a touch of genius--and I don't think I overstate that--by Senator Isakson from Georgia to come up with this idea of a trigger over a year ago so that it would be clear that the precondition of major immigration reform would be that the border would be secure, especially the southwestern border. I congratulate Senator Isakson for that initiative, and it is included in this bill in concept in that the trigger is in place. The concern I have is that the elements which exercise the trigger, so that we then move on to the policies of this bill relative to other elements of immigration reform, such as the guest worker program, making sure we have adequate employer verification, doing the things that are necessary in the area of creating more capacity for people to come into this country who are qualified in the area of skills, those elements are subject to a trigger today which is in this bill, and I believe the specifics around that trigger do not lead, unfortunately, to what we want, which is a secure border. It is a movement down the road, but it is a movement down the road which appears in some way to have been set not on the basis of what is necessary for controlling the border but on the basis of what would be necessary to make sure the operative part of this bill goes into action or occurs within 18 months of passage of the bill. So it seems that the numbers which have been put down in this bill relative to how many Border Patrol agents we need, how many detention beds we need, relative to how many observation facilities we need along the border for a virtual fence, relative to other structural needs of the southern border control, those elements were not defined in terms of what would lead ultimately to full security and operational control of the southwestern border, but those elements were defined as to what was perceived as being doable in the next 18 months. The difference between what is necessary for operational control of the border and what those numbers are is not dramatic, quite obviously, but it is significant, very significant. I had the good fortune for a number of years to chair the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and I served on it for a long time. So I do believe I am fairly familiar with this issue, as familiar, probably, as anybody in this body with this issue since there were a number of initiatives which I began both as a chairman of the Commerce-State- Justice Subcommittee, which was a precursor to the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and then as chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee which were targeted directly on the issue of upgrading the Border Patrol capability, the port control capability, the Coast Guard capability, and the detention bed capability so that we could get operational control over the border. Throughout this period, as we have been ramping up--and we have ramped up dramatically. We have come really from a marginal capability of controlling the southwestern border to a capability that is quite high, and we are making dramatic strides every day in that area. The numbers that are necessary were fairly well vetted as we stepped with intensity into this process 3 or 4 years ago. The numbers in this bill, therefore, should reflect what was the consensus position at that time and what I continue to believe is the consensus position as to the type of resources and the number of people they need and the type of support they need on the border to gain operational control of the border. This bill we are dealing with calls for 18,000 Border Patrol agents, of whom it is assumed 16,000 will be boots on the ground on the border. It calls for something like 21,000 detention beds. It calls for something like 70 towers where we do virtual fence activity. We just let out a contract called SBInet, the purpose of which is to replace a program which was a total failure, which would put an electronic surveillance system along the border. That SBInet is a fairly complex technological initiative which involves ground sensors, visual sensors, and heat sensors, and it involves unmanned aerial aircraft to cover that part of the border which cannot be effectively and should not be covered with physical fencing. It is a complex initiative, but it is one which will work, we hope, and one which we are well down the road toward doing. But for it to work effectively and for it to be properly built, the amount of resources that needs to be committed to it exceeds by a factor of about 30 percent what is in this bill. The same is true in the area of Border Patrol agents and in the area of detention beds, although less is needed. So what I have done in this amendment is essentially propose that we take the numbers that we know are necessary to gain operational control over the border and put those numbers into this bill. And that we allow the trigger, which is this exceptional idea Senator Isakson came up with, to function off those numbers, rather than backing into the trigger by using the number of months which we think we want to use before we move on to the rest of the bill. The difference, as I said, is not dramatic, significant but not dramatic. For example, instead of 18,000 border agents--we had a lot of testimony, a lot of discussion, and the head of the Border Patrol at the time, Robert Bonner, said he needed 20,000 agents on the border-- not 16, 20. So there is a 2,000 agent difference. Now, the issue will be hiring, the issue will be how quickly you can work them through the system and bring them on board. The issue is attrition. But the fact is, that is the number where there was consensus, pretty much, that we needed in order to get the right number of agents on the Southwest border--20,000; so 2,000 additional agents over what the bill calls for. In the area of detention beds, the bill calls for 21,000. We are already headed well past that with the appropriations process, so that was almost picking a number that was already done. It is like saying we are going to approve this event, the trigger will occur if the Sun comes up in the east. The Sun was going to come up in the east. The fact is 21,000 beds is not enough. We know that. We know we need closer to 30,000 beds in order to have the adequate detention capability to stop completely the catch-and-release issue, which is a huge issue. There are a couple of amendments that have already been offered. I think Senator Grassley has offered that amendment. I am not sure of that, but certainly Senator Graham's amendment, which was just accepted, is related to that point. So instead of 21,000 beds, the number I have put in my amendment is 31,000, which is the consensus position. Again, it is not hard to get to 31,000 from 21,000 because we are already over 21,000, or we are headed over 21,000. We can certainly get well above that number fairly quickly. In fact, 21,000 may be wrong. Maybe the bill calls for 27,000. I apologize. The number here is 27,000. Somewhere I had seen 21,000, but if it is 27,000 the bill calls for, we are only asking for another 4,000 beds in order to accomplish the goal that was agreed to in order to reach the capacity to handle people coming into this country and not have to release them and ask them to come back, which they do not do, for their hearings. In addition, on the virtual fence side and on the hard fencing side, this amendment doesn't call for any additional hard fencing. The hard fencing language is 370 miles. I happen to believe that is probably as close to the number as we need. Hard fencing is needed in urban areas, but most of the border is not urban. In the nonurban areas, hard fencing is not functional and doesn't add a whole lot to our security or to our ability to control the border. But we do need additional vehicle barrier fencing, probably another 100 miles over what this bill calls for, which is 200 miles, which is already in place and we are headed toward, so this calls for 300 miles of vehicle fencing, which was what we agreed to back when we did the Safe Border Initiative. On the virtual capability, this bill calls for 70 towers. Well, we are already headed toward 70 towers. We know we can build 70 towers, but 70 towers isn't what we need to make the system work. We need significantly more than that. We believe, within a reasonable timeframe, we can build 105 towers, which would have us on track, so this language calls for 105 towers. It also eliminates the arbitrary language in here which is a sense of the Senate that everything has to be done within 18 months. As I mentioned, if you look at these numbers, you can see basically what happened here, I suspect, was somebody said, what numbers can we be absolutely sure we are going to hit in 18 months so we can exercise the trigger and the numbers? They were good numbers that were put in, but they weren't the numbers there had been consensus built around 2 years ago, 3 years ago, even as recently as 1 year ago, that were needed in order to actually gain operational control of the border. So this amendment simply says, let us use the trigger mechanism. It is an excellent idea, and let's take it forward but use it as a real trigger that functions off of numbers that we know, if they are in place, will create operational control and which will not unduly delay the execution of the rest of this bill. With proper resources, almost everything I have proposed in my amendment could be accomplished fairly quickly. It is more than a statement of commitment to operational control; it is a commitment to operational control before the trigger gets pulled. In addition, to make sure we are getting the operational control we need, the amendment has an independent review by the Government Accountability Office of the effort by the Department to meet these different benchmarks so we, as a Congress, will know when there is a certification that the benchmarks have been reached, the benchmarks actually will have been reached and they will have been reviewed by an independent group, specifically the Government Accountability Office, to confirm they have been reached. The amendment's purpose is to accomplish what the bill wishes to accomplish. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure the first step in this effort of immigration reform is to secure specifically the Southwest border so we have a situation where people are not continuing to cross into this country illegally after we have passed immigration reform--or at least there is a clear roadmap which will get us to the resources and the number of people we need on the southwestern border to assure people won't be coming into this country illegally along that border because we will have the necessary support to accomplish that. It is, I believe, an extremely reasonable amendment. Ironically, the numbers in this amendment have been offered from the other side of the aisle on numerous occasions, or pretty close to these numbers, by Senators who feel, as I do, that the border needs to be secure. I would note especially Senator Byrd has had a number of amendments right along this course where he has said, let us do what we have to do in the area of resources to assure that Homeland Security has the people they need in Border Patrol agents, has the resources they need in the area of detention beds, has the resources they need in the area of a virtual fence and regular fencing in order to adequately control the border--not adequately, but to have actual operational control over the border. I hope this amendment would be accepted. This is an amendment which toughens up our commitment to border security and it does it in the context of what is an idea that makes a lot of sense, which is the Isakson trigger and, therefore, it is, in my opinion, a significant effort to improve the bill and give people the confidence that when we pass this immigration reform, it will have as its first element our ability to make sure we know who is coming into this country, especially across the Southwest border. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. I wish to respond briefly to the points which were made. The numbers in this bill are numbers which are a fait accompli. They are numbers which we already know we will reach within the next 18 months, if we stay on the appropriations path which was set up by myself and Senator Byrd 2 years ago, but they are not the numbers on which there was consensus needed in order to bring operational control to the borders. They are not those numbers. They are good numbers. They are a-step-in-the-right-direction numbers. That is why we funded them and put in place a path to continue to fund them. But there was absolute consensus--and don't let anybody come to this floor and say something else--that the numbers for gaining control over the border are different than these numbers. If they weren't, then we wouldn't have let the contract on creating the virtual fence, because the numbers in this bill do not come anywhere near the completion of the virtual fence. The numbers in this bill do not come anywhere near what is needed to have the detention beds necessary to completely end catch and release, nor do they reach the numbers necessary to have the number of people on the border necessary to control the border. The Commissioner of Customs, Mr. Bonner, made it very clear in testimony 3 or 4 years ago that they needed 20,000 agents on the ground on the border. This amendment hasn't asked for a radical change from what the bill suggests. It says the bill makes a great stride, but if we are to use the Isakson trigger effectively, which we want to--and the purpose of the trigger is to make sure the border is secure before we move to the next step in the bill--then we have to have the resources on the border to accomplish that security. The resources necessary to do that are 20,000 agents, which is an increase of 2,000 over what the bill calls for; the addition to 31,000 beds is an increase of about 2,500 over what the bill calls for; an additional 100 miles of vehicle barrier over what the bill calls for; and within a timeframe we believe is reasonable, so you could still hit the 18 months or be close to it, not 70 towers of virtual fencing, which is where the communications and the optics will be operated out of, but 105. That won't be the end of the towers, but that would be enough to allow operational control over the border. This is not dramatic or radical. It is not even a grand change from what the bill suggests. It is simply a change that meets the conditions which we know are necessary in order to give operational control over the border. The point which this amendment makes is that operational control of the border should not be determined by an arbitrary number of months going by--in other words, if 18 months go by, we will lose operational control over the border. It should be set by the resources being in place on the border which will limit the ability of people to come across the border illegally. That is what this language does. How much more will this language cost than what the bill costs? About $700 million more. That certainly should be within the funding capabilities of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, if the administration wanted to, they could send up a supplemental to accomplish that. That is a very doable event. Then it has a second condition, which is, it simply says the certification that these numbers have been met shall be reviewed by GAO. I do think as a Congress we would want that independent review. That is reasonable. It takes the number of Border Patrol agents up by 2,000 and gets it to the number that was agreed to as being needed. It takes the number of beds up by about 2,500 and gets the number which was agreed to. It takes the number of vehicle barriers up by 100 and gets to the number that was contracted for. It does not change the fencing requirement. It keeps that at 370 miles. It adds 35 towers for the virtual fence, which is what the contract called for. To represent this is some sort of amendment which therefore fundamentally undermines the core agreement is absurd on its face. The core agreement was, we would put in place, using the Isakson trigger, which was a stroke of genius for resolving this issue, resources on the border which would allow for operational control of the border. This simply calls for those resources to be consistent with what the testimony has been over the last few years as to what is needed in order to accomplish that. The great irony is less than 6 months ago, we passed the Safe Fence Act. The Safe Fence Act essentially put in place the mechanism which got us to these numbers. The Safe Fence Act called for this action. The Safe Fence Act got 92 votes. It seems to me if 6 months ago we believed these were the numbers that should be used for fencing--and that is one element of it--how can we change 6 months later and say: We are going to step back from that and that is not the number we need in order to have the trigger occur? If this were a dramatic shift, a radical shift, an undermining shift in the exercise of this bill, I would say, fine, oppose it; it is an attempt to kill the bill. But just the opposite is the case. I am one of the few people on my side of the aisle who actually voted for the Kennedy-McCain bill the last time it came through here. I am on record and my commitment is to do immigration reform. I also know the American people will not be sold on the idea that we are going to do immigration reform until they are confident our border is secure, especially the southwestern border where the vast numbers of people are coming in illegally. The northern border is a whole other issue and a serious one, especially from the view of terrorism. But on the southern border, people want it stopped. They want to know there are in place the resources to allow us to control that border before we take the next step into immigration reform, which next steps are critical and necessary. That is, of course, the genius of the Isakson trigger for which he deserves great credit, and which this language will essentially make more effective because it accomplishes the underlying goal of the trigger mechanism. How long will this delay over the 18 months, which appears to be the arbitrary number? In fact, a sense of the Senate in this bill says everything has to be done in 18 months. How long will these numbers I have suggested we meet, which aren't my numbers but are numbers that have been around and on which there was consensus before this bill came out of committee or came out of the working group--it never came out of committee, obviously--came out of the working group around which there was so much consensus last year that we had a 92-to-2 vote on the Safe Fence Act, how much will that extend that time period beyond 18 months? Actually, it might not extend it at all. With proper dollars, Homeland Security could probably do all of these things within the next 18 months. Certainly, they could do the extra hundreds of miles of vehicle barrier. I am told they can do the extra 35 towers without the contractor. We have talked to the contractor. He thinks that is a very doable event. The detention beds are certainly doable because you can actually, if you can't build them--of course, what we should be doing is putting up tent cities, which we are doing, but in any event, you can contract them out, potentially. We are talking another 2,000 beds. The border agents is an issue, but if it is going to be an issue at 18,000, it will be an issue at 20,000. Hiring border agents has become a function of finding the people we know we want to do the job. But it is still very doable within that timeframe. I am not sure it will delay it at all. I suspect you could still do all this within 18 months, but there should not be a set series of months at the end of which we are going to say: OK, we have operational control of the border, and we can move on to the next things. What we should have, rather, is a set of very determinable benchmarks which will allow us to say that benchmark has been met and there is consensus that that benchmark will accomplish what we say it will. In this instance, that is the issue of operational control of the border. So I would hope people would not vote to table this amendment. I would note that many Members on the other side of the aisle have voted for these types of resources in the past, when the amendment had been offered by Senator Byrd. So you may want to ask yourself, are you going to be consistent if you vote against this one? But, more importantly, I think you have to ask yourself, are these changes--an additional 2,000 border agents, an additional 100 miles of vehicle barriers, an additional 2,500 beds--so onerous that they are deal killers? If that is the case, then this bill must be dead because we just passed an amendment to cut the number of temporary workers in half. Now, that is a serious issue. This is taking procedure and putting it over policy when you take that position to the extreme. So I hope Members will support this amendment. If the Senator from Massachusetts is inclined to move forward at this moment, I have no problem.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.