A bill to increase the annual salaries of justices and judges of the United States.

Mr. President, our Nation's States and health safety net are simultaneously facing a crisis. According to State budget officers, the states are facing a nearly $30 billion budget shortfall this year and an $80 billion gap in fiscal year 2004 due to the economic recession. At the same time, it is estimated that the number of uninsured increased from 41 to 45 million this past year. And, due to the State budget shortfalls, the numbers of uninsured may increase even further.

In fact, the lead paragraph in the New York Times in an article entitled ``Cutbacks Imperil Health Coverage for States' Poor'' on April 28, 2003, reads, ``Millions of low-income Americans face the loss of health insurance or sharp cuts in benefits, like coverage for prescription drugs and dental care, under proposals now moving through state legislatures around the country.''

The article continues, ``State officials and health policy experts say the cuts will increase the number of uninsured, threaten recent progress in covering children and impose severe strains on hospitals, doctors and nursing homes.''

As a result, I believe the Federal Government should take immediate steps to fundamentally reassert and reassert its role in helping the States with this fiscal crisis and rising Medicaid costs, lowering the number of uninsured, and finally, confronting infant and maternal mortality and morbidity statistics that are unworthy of our great Nation.

To address these issues, today and tomorrow, I will be introducing three relevant bills. The first addresses the fiscal crisis confronting States and the Medicaid program entitled ``Strengthening Our States,'' or the ``SOS Act.''

The second addresses our Nation's long-standing and growing crisis of the uninsured that is entitled the ``Health Coverage, Affordability, Responsibility, and Equity Act'' or the ``Health CARE Act.''

The final bill takes on our Nation's high infant and mortality rates and is called the ``Start Healthy, Stay Health Act.''

First things first. In any campaign--whether in sports, business, or politics--you have to have both offensive and defensive strategies. In trying to reduce the number of uninsured in our country, we must first, as an emergency room doctor would, stop the bleeding. Therefore, our first priority should be to support and strengthen the Medicaid program.

Unfortunately, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated in March that as many as 1.7 million Americans could lose coverage altogether under proposals advanced by governors or adopted by State legislative committees this year.

Therefore, I am introducing today with Senators Corzine, Clinton, Kerry, Lautenberg, Dayton, and Johnson legislation entitled the ``Strengthening Our States Act of 2003.'' This bill is a companion bill to that being introduced by Representative Dingell, Brown of Ohio, Waxman, and others and is aimed at improving Medicaid and providing support to States to enhance their ability to provide coverage to their uninsured residents in these difficult times.

The SOS Act uses a combination of approaches which: first, provide additional Federal fiscal relief to States; second, provide additional flexibility to States in administering and improving the Medicaid program; and third, provide incentives and assistance to stave off cuts to existing coverage, and facilitate coverage expansions in the future.

The legislation will simplify Medicaid and enable States to strengthen the program and stands in sharp contrast to the President's proposal to convert Medicaid into a block grant that would erode health insurance coverage.

In fact, the Administration's prescription is the wrong medicine for the wrong ailment. The Federal Government should be stepping up its commitment to seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income children rather than stepping away and leaving States holding the bag.

First and foremost, our legislation acknowledges and reflects on the important role that Medicaid plays in our entire health care system. As Diane Rowland and Jim Tallon of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured have noted: ``. . . it is hard to envision our health system and society without a program like Medicaid. Medicaid is the glue that helps hold our health system together and takes on the highest-risk, sickest, and most expensive populations from private insurance and Medicare. For low-income Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid picks

up Medicare premiums and some cost sharing as well as filling the gaps in coverage for long-term care services, prescription drugs, and vision and dental care.''

Medicaid addresses the failure of the marketplace to deliver affordable health coverage to our Nation's most fragile and vulnerable citizens. However, there is no reason why it should also have to play the role of picking up the slack of the Medicare program. A central tenet of our SOS proposal is for the Federal Government to begin taking the steps to assume 100 percent of the costs associated with care and services in Medicaid for Medicare beneficiaries, also known as dual eligibles.

This, I would add, is in keeping with long-standing policy of the National Governors' Association, or NGA, and is in sharp contrast to the Administration's proposal to maintain the current Medicaid financing system for mandatory populations and services while block granting care of optional populations and services to States. Who are these optional populations? They are largely the elderly and people with disabilities, many of whom are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 83 percent of all Medicaid spending on the elderly is for either optional populations or services, such as prescription drugs and long-term care. In fact, according to Cindy Mann of Georgetown University and a former Medicaid director under the Clinton Administration, an estimated 35 percent of all State Medicaid costs are for so-called ``dual eligibles.''

Therefore, rather than stepping up to the plate, the Administration is instead stepping away from its commitment to the elderly and disabled, which should be our responsibility at the Federal level, by moving these groups and their health care services into a block grant. Groups representing the elderly and disabled communities have already spoken out against this.

As AARP Executive Director and CEO Bill Novelli says, ``This [Administration's block grant] proposal handcuffs states because it leaves people more vulnerable in future years as States struggle to meet increased needs with decreased dollars.''

The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities adds, ``The Bush Administration proposal fails people with disabilities and dishonors the Nation's commitment to its residents--it is not in the national interest. . . . What the Medicaid program calls `optional' services are, in reality, mandatory disability services for the children and adults who need them. These services often are not only life-saving, but also the key to a positive quality of life--something everyone in our nation deserves.''

Again, the Federal Government should be stepping up its commitment to seniors and people with disabilities rather than stepping away, as the President's proposal does.

With respect to the fiscal crisis facing states, the Administration has long opposed fiscal relief to States as part of its economic stimulus package. Instead, the Administration points out that its Medicaid block grant proposal provides more funding up front to States, in the amount of $3.5 billion over one year and $12.7 billion over the first seven years to help States. But the proposal has strong elements of a typical bait and switch by yanking every dime of that money away starting in 2011. Secretary Thompson noted at the press conference that he would not be around at the time of the $12.7 billion in reductions eight years from now and the plan clearly counts on the fact that most of this crop of governors would not be either.

However, that is exactly when our Nation's baby boomers hit retirement age in rapidly increasing numbers and the long term care costs within Medicaid will significantly increase.

In sharp contrast, the SOS Act includes a temporary increase in the Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, to state Medicaid programs in the amount of $15 billion and another $15 billion in additional aid to States--far more than the temporary $3 billion offered by the Administration.

Also, unlike a block grant, the current Medicaid matching rate is responsive to States in times of recessions by providing Federal matching funds to States for each additional person who becomes eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, our SOS Act recognizes the formula can be even more responsive by preserving coverage during difficult times and includes a General Accounting Office study of ways to make the formula more responsive to fiscal distress during either a national or State recession.

In addition, the Strengthening Our States Act would increase Federal payments for certain services critical for special populations or federally-imposed services. It would provide enhanced Federal funding for urban Indian health services, translation services, outstationed workers, and reimbursement to health providers for emergency services delivered undocumented individuals who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid. Again, the Administration's proposal simply block grants funding for these services and steps away from its Federal responsibility.

For example, services delivered to Native Americans by Indian Health Service providers and health organizations are reimbursed at 100 percent federal match currently in recognition of the Federal responsibility and role in delivering services to Native Americans apart from States. Under a block grant, the Federal match is eliminated and the Federal role in providing care to Native Americans is abandoned. This is contrary to longstanding Federal policy and its relationship with tribes and tribal organizations and to policy by the National Governors' Association.

And finally, with respect to giving States flexibility and assistance to expand upon existing coverage options, the Strengthening Our States Act is far better and responsive to states than a block grant. Block grants do not adjust for population changes, recessions, or efforts to expand coverage by States. At its unveiling, Secretary Thompson spoke about the added options the block grants offer States to expand coverage. However, it does so with no new funding. This offer of flexibility is, therefore, illusory.

In fact, because Federal funding is capped for optional opulations by the Administration's block grant, states cannot draw down additional Federal support when it chooses to expand coverage. Under current law and the SOS Act, they can. Some of the more ground-breaking efforts by states such as those by Vermont, Washington, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and even Wisconsin, would have likely never come to pass without that added Federal support.

Therefore, the SOS Act continues and expands upon that Federal support by giving States additional coverage options, such as to set uniform eligibility levels for families rather than covering parents and children separately. The SOS Act also would make States eligible for enhanced matching funds to cover low-income working parents under Medicaid.

States should also beware of the Administration's promise of 9 percent growth rates for the next 10 years. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed a budget that would have reduced Medicaid spending by $92 billion over 10 years. While that was rejected in conference, such efforts become much easier under the rubric of a block grant. Again, recent history contains many such promises and examples.

For example, as the NGA policy on the Social Service Block Grant notes, during passage of TANF, ``Congress and the Administration made a commitment to Governors to fund SSBG at $2.38 billion each year through fiscal year 2002, with the funding increasing to $2.8 billion in fiscal 2003 and each year thereafter.'' The reality is that funding has been reduced to $1.7 billion in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 65 percent below the promised funding levels.

There is an old saying, which goes, ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' When members of Congress and future Administrations see 9 percent growth rates in these Medicaid block grants and have a particular tax cut, Medicare change, transportation program, or whatever they wish to fund, you can already hear them saying, ``What if we just reduce the growth rates to 8 percent or 7 percent or 6 percent or 5 percent. . . .'' Well, we all can see where this rapidly heads and we have all been fooled once before.

Some governors, including Secretary Thompson, seem to have a short memory on these matters. On April 14, 1997, 41 Governors, including Secretary Thompson, Bush Administration Cabinet Members Tom Ridge, and Christine Todd Whitman, wrote President Clinton, and said: ``We adamantly oppose a cap on federal Medicaid spending in any form. Unilateral caps in federal Medicaid spending will result in cost shifts to states, enabling the federal government to balance its budget at the expense of the states.''

What was true then remains true 6 years later.

Moreover, on behalf of the NGA, Governors Bob Miller of Nevada and Mike Leavitt testified before the Senate Finance Committee and made the following statement: ``. . . caps could result in states becoming solely responsible for unexpected program costs, such as a loss in a lawsuit on reimbursement rates or the development of expensive new therapies that drive up treatment costs beyond the federal allowable rate.

They added: ``. . . the cost shift resulting from a unilateral cap would present states with a number of bad alternatives. States essentially would have to choose between cutting back on payment rates to providers, eliminating optional benefits provided to recipients, ending coverage for optional beneficiaries, or coming up with additional state funds to absorb 100 percent of the cost of services.''

I do not see why this needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Why do we have to throw out the entire Medicaid financing structure, which benefits States, beneficiaries, and providers, in order to grant States additional flexibility to their programs?

In 1997, we rejected the all-or-nothing proposal and worked with the States and gave them a package of added flexibility, including the ability to enroll much of their Medicaid population in managed care without the need for a waiver.

Secretary Thompson talks a great deal about the flexibility the block grant offers and cites the need to allow States the ability to move people out of institutional settings into more appropriate home- and community-based settings and is right. Under the block grant, States are only granted additional flexibility to do so if they accept a block grant. In contrast, the SOS Act provides States an enhanced Federal matching rate to provide home- and community-based services.

However, rather than saying to States that they can only do so through the acceptance of a block grant, why can't we provide them this option without the imposition of a Federal limit on funding? Both states and beneficiary groups are asking for it and we can and should act.

It is on this point that I must add that the Medicaid program was not created for Federal officials or governors. We all clearly need to be reminded that there are other stakeholders in the Medicaid program, including the 43 million people served by the program.

As Alan Weil of the Urban institute and the former Medicaid director of the State of Colorado wrote in a recent article published in Health Affairs: ``If money is at the heart of debates over Medicaid, the millions of indigent people whose varied and complex medical needs are met by the program are its sole. The amount of human suffering the program alleviates is immense.''

As the Administration attempts to proceed on negotiations with the governors on a deal on block grants, let's not forget the children, mothers, seniors, and people with disabilities served by Medicaid. The SOS Act provides a far better alternative.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the introduction of S. 119, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003. I applaud Senators DeWine and Lindsey Graham for their longstanding and essential leadership on this issue in the Senate and the House. The importance of this issue is made tragically clear by the recent murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.

In my home State of Utah, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to the unborn child, the criminal faces the possibility of being prosecuted for having taken or injured that unborn life. Twenty-five additional States have similar laws on the books. Eleven of those States recognize the unborn child as a victim throughout the entire period of prenatal development. This is only proper and, it seems to me, only just.

But under existing Federal criminal statutes, if a criminal assaults or kills a woman who is pregnant and thereby causes death or injury to that unborn child, the criminal faces no consequences in our Federal criminal justice system for taking or injuring that innocent, unborn life. This is wrong and it is not justified.

This bill fixes the gap in Federal law by making it a separate Federal offense to kill or injure an unborn child during the commission of certain already-defined Federal crimes committed against the unborn child's mother. This bill does not usurp jurisdiction over States that do not currently have laws that protect unborn victims of violence. It only applies to Federal crimes.

I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this bill. The only reason for opposition that I can suppose is that some in the pro-choice movement believe that our bill draws attention to the effort to dehumanize, desensitize, and depersonalize the unborn child. Given the political and legal arguments of abortion supporters, it may be difficult for them to concede an unborn child is human and therefore a victim of a crime.

Nevertheless, it is not our intention in this bill to turn the debate into a battle on abortion. In no way does this bill interfere with the ability of a woman to have an abortion under current law. The bill specifically does not apply to a woman who engages in any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Therefore, it would not apply to any abortion to which a woman consents. In my view, we should all be able to support this modest effort to protect mothers and their unborn children.

Some will try to claim that this bill weakens domestic violence laws by diverting attention to the unborn. That is simply not true. I am a strong supporter of domestic violence laws in this Nation. I believe domestic violence is an evil plague that needs to be stopped.

For nearly 15 years, I have worked hard on the issue of domestic violence and violence against women. And when I stand here today before the entire United States Senate and offer my support for a bill, I certainly make sure that bill does not diminish in any way our capacity and will to curb domestic violence and protect women. This bill, in fact, strengthens domestic violence laws by making it a separate criminal offense under our Federal legal system to cause death or injury to an unborn child as a result of violence.

For several months now, the Nation has watched in the media the unfortunate and tragic story of Laci Peterson. She was an expectant mother from California who mysteriously vanished shortly before Christmas. In mid-April, her decomposing body and the body of her unborn child washed ashore at a San Francisco-area beach.

The Nation has witnessed a community in mourning over the disappearance and death of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner. Laci Peterson was the truly tragic victim of violence that not only took her life but also the innocent life of her unborn son. This is a truly devastating story, especially for those who knew and loved Laci Peterson and eagerly awaited the birth of her son Conner. I want to do what I can to see that justice is served if there is ever a case similar to this that comes before our Federal judicial system, and that is why I support this measure.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted on April 22 and 23 indicated that of the 900 registered voters polled, 49 percent considered themselves pro-choice while only 41 percent said they are pro-life. But what is even more interesting is this same poll showed 84 percent believed Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of homicide for murdering his wife and unborn son. California law permits criminals to be charged with murder for killing an unborn child when it has developed past the embryonic stage.

Now remember, the majority of those polled in this survey said they were pro-choice. But the tragic murder of an innocent, unborn child is shocking and twisted enough that, regardless of any stance on abortion, the vast majority of Americans strongly believe an unborn life taken in murder should result in murder charges brought against the perpetrator. It is only fair and just to ask for our Federal judicial system to incorporate such a strong desire of the American people.

Some will try to confuse the issue here. Let me be clear, the debate on this bill is not about abortion--far from it. It does not affect current law regarding abortion. This bill does not in any way interfere with or weaken domestic violence laws or laws intended to prevent violence against women. This is a simple remedy to a terrible crime. I hope that Congress will seriously consider this bill and promptly pass it.

Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of the erosion of pay for the Federal judiciary. There is consensus among all who have seriously looked at this issue that the independence and quality of the judiciary is at risk because of the inadequacy of the current salaries of Federal judges.

The American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association issued a report on this issue in February 2001. That report documented the factors impacting erosion of judicial pay and the detrimental effects on the judiciary. Because of the withholding of cost-of-living adjustments, the impact of inflation, and the insufficient attempts to stabilize judicial pay, Federal judges are increasingly choosing to resign or retire. Furthermore, the report noted, the prospect of a declining salary in real terms also discourages potential candidates from seeking appointments to the bench.

In his 2002 Year-End Report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist identified the need to increase judicial pay as the most pressing issue facing the judiciary. He highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.''

In the Report of the National Commission on the Public Service, issued January 2003, the Chairman of the Commission, Paul Volker, made this observation: ``Judicial salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of Federal compensation policies. Federal judicial salaries have lost 24 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, which is arguably inconsistent with the Constitutional provision that judicial salaries may not be reduced by Congress. . . . The lag in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large.'' Accordingly, the Commission made the recommendation that Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in judicial, executive and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to other professional opportunities.

Responding to this report and recommendation, the Judicial Conference, at its recent meeting, unanimously adopted a Resolution which contains in part the following:

``Whereas, the President at the request of the Chief

Justice has agreed to support legislation that would increase

judicial salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an

average of $24,948, across all levels of judicial offices;

Now therefore, the Committee on the Judicial Branch

recommends that the Judicial Conference endorse and

vigorously seek legislation that would increase judicial

salaries by 16.5 percent, which will yield an average of

$24,948, across all levels of judicial offices.''

Today, Senator Leahy and I, joined by Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chambliss are introducing a bill that will restore the lost cost-of-living adjustments which were denied to the judiciary and will help reduce the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries which still remains.

This legislation enacts a 16.5 percent increase in the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court and other Federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, an average salary increase of about $25,000. It does so without altering the respective provisions of title 28, United States Code, which defines their salary rates. The pay adjustment would be effective with the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2004, and would be applied before any annual salary adjustment authorized under the Employment Cost Index approval mechanism provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 461.

The judicial officers enumerated in this bill to receive the 16.5 percent pay increase are the Chief Justice of the United States, associate justices of the Supreme Court, United States circuit judges, United States district judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade. In addition, this legislation would have the effect of increasing salaries of the judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrate judges whose salaries are related to the rate of pay of United States district judges.

This legislation will do much to improve retention on the bench and will aid in the recruitment of outstanding judicial candidates. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Chambliss and me in this bipartisan measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judicial Conference Resolution, as well as the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lautenberg, I am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and Northern Atlantic coast.

The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends heavily on tourism along our shore.

Until the Bush Administration came into office, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even a remote

possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition, President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June 12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.

Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North- Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.'' I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably illegal, and I was pleased when at my urging, the Administration rescinded.

But the Administration is at it again in the energy bill now before the Senate. The bill contains provisions that direct the Department of Interior to inventory all potential oil and natural gas resources in the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off of the New Jersey coast. The bill would allow the use of seismic surveys, dart core sampling, and other exploration technologies, which could negatively impact coastal and marine areas.

These provisions run directly counter to language that Congress has included annually in appropriations bills to prevent leasing, pre- leasing, and related activities in most areas of the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas off the New Jersey coast.

In my view, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation. Doing so would ensure the people of New Jersey and neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off their beaches. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.

More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5--currently $24,000 for all parts of the country--with regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far- reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.

Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veterans--veterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend liberty-- have access to quality health care.

In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.

To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.

Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low- income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as ``low-income'' exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's ``low-income'' classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.

As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.

The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.

This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.

Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing

framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.

Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.

Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the recent nationwide publicity surrounding the murder of 27-year-old Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, has renewed public concern about violence against the unborn-- and rightfully so.

Not long ago, the bodies of Laci--who was eight months pregnant at the time she disappeared--and Conner were discovered on a rocky shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Baby Conner was found near his mother with his umbilical cord still attached.

Under California State law, intentionally killing a fetus is murder, and California prosecutors are seeking to bring separate murder charges in the deaths of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. But, I want make it very clear to my colleagues here in the Senate that the murder charge that California prosecutors will bring for the death of Laci's son would not be permitted if that crime were being prosecuted under current Federal law. And that--that is why we need to pass and get signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Let me explain.

In about half the States today, 26, if you commit a crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her unborn baby dies, you can be punished for the violence against both the mother and the unborn child. But, tragically, if you commit a Federal crime of violence against a pregnant woman and her baby dies, the death of the unborn child could essentially go unpunished. Examples of such Federal crimes of violence would include kidnapping across State lines, drug-related drive-by shootings, or assaults on Federal property.

This gap in the law leads to glaring injustices. It is time that we close this gap once and for all and let justice wrap its arms around our society's most vulnerable members.

That is why, it is imperative that we pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act--once and for all. Today, along with several of my distinguished colleagues--Senators Graham of South Carolina, Hatch, Brownback, Santorum, Kyl, Voinovich, McCain, Ensign, Enzi, Inhofe, Nickles, Bunning, Coleman, Chambliss, Grassley, Fitzgerald, Shelby, and Talent--we are re-introducing our legislation. This is the fourth time that I have introduced this bill--in fact, it was the first piece of legislation that I introduced at the start of the 108th Congress. This bill is strongly supported by President Bush, and a companion measure passed the House of Representatives in two previous Congresses. I intend to take procedural steps that would make this bill eligible to be taken up directly by the Senate, without further Committee action.

I thank my colleagues for their support of this effort, and would like to recognize especially Senator Graham of South Carolina, who championed this issue on the House side before joining us in the Senate. He has worked tirelessly to see to it that the most vulnerable are protected. I also would like to thank our lead House sponsors-- Congresswoman Melissa Hart from Pennsylvania and my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot. They, too, are working tirelessly to get this bill passed by the other Chamber and signed into law.

Our bill would establish new criminal penalties for anyone injuring or killing a fetus while committing certain Federal offenses. Specifically, this bill would make any murder or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain existing Federal crimes a separate crime under Federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Twenty-six, 26, States already have criminalized the killing or injuring of unborn victims during a crime.

We live in a violent world. And sadly, sometimes--perhaps more often than we realize--even unborn babies are the targets, intended or otherwise, of violent acts. We have to protect these innocent victims. I'd like to share some disturbing examples with my colleagues of situations where the deaths of unborn children would have gone unpunished but for the existence of State criminal laws. If these same crimes would have occurred in the 24 States today that don't have such State laws, justice would not have been served, because there is simply no Federal law in place to try these crimes.

First, let me talk about the example of Airman Gregory Robbins. In 1996, Airman Robbins and his family were stationed in my home State of Ohio at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. At that time, Mrs. Robbins was more than eight months pregnant with a daughter they named Jasmine. On September 12, 1996, in a fit of rage, Airman Robbins wrapped his fist in a T-shirt and savagely beat his wife by striking her repeatedly about the head and abdomen. Fortunately, Mrs. Robbins survived the violent assault. Tragically, however, her uterus ruptured during the attack, expelling the baby into her abdominal cavity, causing Jasmine's death.

Air Force prosecutors sought to prosecute Airman Robbins for Jasmine's death, but neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice nor the Federal code makes criminal such an act that results in the death or injury of an unborn child. The only available Federal offense was for the assault on the mother. This was a case in which the only available Federal penalty did not fit the crime. So prosecutors bootstrapped the Ohio unborn victims law to convict Airman Robbins of Jasmine's death. Fortunately, upon appeal, the court upheld the lower court's ruling.

If it hadn't been for the Ohio law that was already in place, there would have been no opportunity to prosecute and punish Airman Robbins for the assault against Baby Jasmine. That's why we need a Federal remedy to avoid having to bootstrap State laws to provide recourse when a violent act occurs during the commission of a Federal crime. A Federal remedy will ensure that crimes within Federal jurisdiction against unborn victims are punished.

Let me give you another example. In August 1999, Shiwona Pace of Little Rock, AK, was days away from giving birth. She was thrilled about her pregnancy. Her boyfriend, Eric Bullock, however, did not share her joy and enthusiasm. In fact, Eric wanted the baby to die. So, he hired three thugs to beat his girlfriend so badly that she lost the unborn baby. According to Shiwona, who testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing we held in Washington on February 23, 2000:

I begged and pleaded for the life of my unborn child, but

they showed me no mercy. In fact, one of them told me, ``Your

baby is dying tonight.'' I was choked, hit in the face with a

gun, slapped, punched, and kicked repeatedly in the stomach.

One of them even put a gun in my mouth and threatened to

shoot.

In this particular case, just a few short weeks before this vicious attack, Arkansas passed its ``Fetal Protection Act.'' Under the State law, Erik Bullock was convicted on February 9, 2001, of capital murder against Shiwona's unborn child and sentenced to life in prison without parole. He was also convicted of first-degree battery for harm against Shiwona.

In yet another example--this one in Columbus--16-year-old Sean Steele was found guilty of two counts of murder for the death of his girlfriend Barbara ``Bobbie'' Watkins, age 15, and her 22-week-old, unborn child. He was convicted under Ohio's unborn victims law, which represented the first murder conviction in Franklin County, OH, in which a victim was a fetus.

Ultimately, the fact is that it is just plain wrong that our Federal Government does absolutely nothing to criminalize violent acts against unborn children. We cannot allow criminals to get away with murder. We must close this loophole.

As a civilized society, we must take a stand against violent crimes against children--especially those waiting to be born. We must close this loophole.

We purposely drafted this legislation very narrowly. Because of that, our bill would not permit the prosecution for any abortion to which a woman consented. It would not permit the prosecution of a woman for any action, legal or illegal, in regard to her unborn child. Our legislation would not permit the prosecution for harm caused to the mother or unborn child in the course of medical treatment. And finally, our bill would not allow for the imposition of the death penalty under this Act.

This is about making sure justice is done when a pregnant woman is attacked. And ultimately, I think that everyone in this Chamber would agree that people who violently attack unborn babies should be punished. When acts of violence against unborn victims fall within federal jurisdiction, we must have a penalty. We have an obligation to our unborn children who cannot speak for themselves. I think Shiwona Pace said it best she testified at our hearing: ``The loss of any potential life should never be in vain.''

I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Specter and Kennedy today in re-introducing legislation that will give new hope to Americans with paralysis.

Recent news reports about the medical miracle Christopher Reeve has experienced over the two past years is an inspiration for every American living with paralysis as a result of a spinal cord injury. When it was announced that, for the first time since his accident in 1995, Chris regained sensation and movement in parts of his body, providing inspiration for some of the two million Americans with paralysis. Most recently, Chris has started weaning himself from a ventilator, breathing on his own for the first time since his accident.

Today, through the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act of 2003, we seek to achieve two primary goals. First, to further advance the science needed to promote spinal regeneration. And second, to build quality of life programs throughout the country that will further advance full participation, independent living, self-sufficiency and equality of opportunity for individuals with paralysis and other physical disabilities.

Chris' recovery and recent scientific evidence show that progress is possible. At research centers in the United States, Europe and Japan, techniques of rigorous exercise have helped numerous persons with paraplegia with limited sensations in their lower bodies walk for short distances, unassisted or using walkers.

While the results of these new methods are quite promising, the limits of what physical exercise can do for patients remains grossly understudied. While each person and each injury is unique, and some people recover spontaneously, an estimated 250,000 Americans are living with spinal cord injuries that have not improved. Which therapy or combination of therapies will work for each person is unknown. Today two million Americans are living with paralysis, including spinal cord injury, stroke, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, ALS and spina bifida. We need research to see how these new interventions work on the entire population of individuals with paralysis.

What we do know is the ordinary repetitive motions used in most rehabilitation centers, like squeezing a ball, are almost certainly not enough to appropriately address neurological injuries.

Patients are usually told that after one year, two at the most, they will never make further progress in their abilities to move or feel sensation. Yet eight years after his accident, through a rigorous exercise plan, Chris is finally seeing results.

Due to efforts led by the National Institutes of Health and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, our Nation stands on the brink of amazing

breakthroughs in science for those with paralysis. However, the biotech and pharmaceutical industries have not invested in paralysis research because they believe the market does not support the private investment. There is an urgent need for the Federal Government to further step up its commitment in this area. The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act would do just that.

By establishing Paralysis Research Consortia at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, we can substantially increase our ability to capitalize on research advances in paralysis. These consortia would be formed to explore unique scientific expertise and focus across the existing research centers at NINDS in an effort to further advance treatments, therapies and developments on one or more forms of paralysis that result from central nervous system trauma and stroke.

Additional breakthroughs are underway in rehabilitation research on paralysis. Federal funding for rehabilitation research at the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research at NIH is showing real potential to improve functional mobility; prevent secondary complications like bladder and urinary tract infections and ulcers; and to develop improved assistive technology. These rehabilitation interventions have the potential to greatly reduce pain and other complications for people with neurological disorders and stroke and, at the same time, save millions in health care costs.

Over the past 20 years, overall days in the hospital and rehabilitation center for those with paralysis have been cut in half. Those with paralysis face astronomical medical costs, and our best estimates tell us that only one-third of those individuals remain employed after paralysis. At least one-third of those with paralysis have incomes of $15,000 or less.

To date, there are no State-based programs at CDC that address paralysis and other physical disability with the goal of improving health outcomes and prevent secondary complications. This bill will, for the first time, ensure that individuals with paralysis get the information they need; have access to public health programs; and support in their communities to navigate services. Ultimately these programs will help remove the barriers to community participation and help improve quality of life. The bill also establishes hospital-based registries on paralysis to collect needed data on the true numbers of individuals with these conditions, and it invests in population-based research to see how various therapies impact different people.

We are on the brink of major breakthroughs for individuals with neurological disorders and stroke that result in paralysis. This bill will ensure that the federal government does its part to help more than 2 million Americans.

When Christopher Reeve was injured, he put a face on an issue that has been neglected for too long. Since then, his tireless efforts to walk again, coupled with his passion and commitment to improve quality of life for others with paralysis, make him an inspiration to all Americans.

It is a pleasure and an honor to lead a bipartisan group of Senators, along with the support of a number of disability groups, including the American Stroke Association, the American Heart Association, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the National Family Caregivers Association, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Easter Paralyzed Veterans, in introducing this bill.