A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the eligibility of certain expenses for the low-income housing credit.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to prevent unnecessary hardship for ranching families in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

This summer, restrictions imposed for the Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher will force about fifteen to thirty ranchers off the land that they have long used for grazing.

This bill requires the Forest Service to explore all the options available to avoid this outcome. For example, the bill makes it easier for the Forest Service to offer ranchers suitable alternative grazing land.

Besides alternative grazing arrangements, the Forest Service should look at fencing, active management of the cattle, and other options. If none of these alternatives are feasible, the bill provides relief for the most seriously affected ranchers.

The bill would allow ranchers to keep using 15 parcels of land during this calendar year where Yosemite Toad and willow flycatcher restrictions would otherwise make grazing unworkable. For many other ranches, where grazing and the species could coexist with some adjustments, environmental protections would fully remain in place.

I urge the Forest Service to quickly devise a long-term strategy to promote the coexistence of ranchers and the species. The Forest Service should work proactively with the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a conservation plan for the species--with the goal of avoiding the need for any listing of it.

I believe that if the regulatory agencies collect better information on the Yosemite Toad and the willow flycatcher, we can find ways to protect the species without completely shutting down long-term ranching operations. I am committed to expediting these long-term solutions.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003,'' bipartisan legislation to reform the way the Federal Government treats unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal immigration custody. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Brownback, Voinovich, Kennedy, Cantwell, DeWine, Feingold, and Lautenberg in introducing this important measure.

Approximately 5,000 foreign-born children under the age of 18 enter the United States each year unaccompanied by parents or other legal guardians. These children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population.

Many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. They are often unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can.

Despite these facts, U.S. Immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without regard for their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children.

Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuances legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very life-threatening situations from which they fled--before they are even able to make their cases before the Department of Homeland Security or an immigration judge.

Prior to March 1, 2003, the Immigration Naturalization Service, INS, had responsibility for the care, custody, and treatment of unaccompanied alien children. Too often, the INS, fell short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities.

The legislation that I am introducing today builds on Section 462 of Public Law 107-296, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002'', which provided for the transfer of responsibility for the care

and placement of unaccompanied alien children from the now-abolished INS to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, within the Department of Health and Human Services. This provision was based on S. 121, comprehensive legislation relating to unaccompanied alien children that I introduced at the beginning of the 107th Congress.

With the enactment of the Homeland Security Act, we set into motion the centralization of responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children in the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The first phase of this transfer of responsibility occurred on March 1, 2003. Once the transition is completed, we have finally resolved the conflict of interest inherent in the former system.

I am pleased that the provision transferring responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied alien children was contained in the Homeland Security Act. Its inclusion in the new law was an important first step in reforming the way unaccompanied alien children are treated. It was a key provision for two reasons: First, it will help ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not burdened with policy issues unrelated to the threat of terrorism. The new Department has a huge and important mission and its attention should be focused on that mission. Second, it recognizes that the Federal Government has a special responsibility to protect these children who are in federal custody. The INS did not always live up that responsibility.

But, the transfer of authority to the ORR--by itself--is not enough to ensure that these children are properly treated. Congress now has a responsibilty to go beyond the simple transfer and set the priorities for ORR and its new jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born minors.

A number of other important reforms that were contained in last year's S. 121 were left out of the Homeland Security Act. Enactment of these reforms will be crucial if we truly are to reform the manner in which these children are treated. As I mentioned, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 builds on the Homeland Security Act in two ways: First, it would make a number of technical and conforming changes in law to bring about the smooth transfer of the INS's unaccompanied alien child-related functions to ORR. Second, it would make a number of more substantive reforms in law with respect the respect to the treatment of these children--reforms that are designed to ensure that such children are treated with fairness and compassion.

Other provisions include those that would keep children who are criminals or who pose a threat to national security under the custody of the Department of Homeland Security rather than transfer responsibility of them to the ORR.

I first became involved in this issue when I heard about a young 15- year old Chinese girl who stood before a U.S. immigration court facing deportation proceedings. She had found her way to the United States as a stowaway in a container ship captured off of Guam, hoping to escape the repression she had experienced in her home country.

She had been placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, fleeing China's rigid family planning laws, Under these laws, she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate.

And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? The INS detained her in a juvenile jail in Portland, OR, for 8 months before her asylum hearing, and 4 months after she was granted asylum.

At her asylum hearing, the young girl stood before a judge, unrepresented by counsel, confused, and unable to understand the proceedings against her. She could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to a lawyer who later came to represent her, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.''

While the young girl eventually received asylum in our country, she unnecessarily faced an ordeal no child should bear under our immigration system. This young Chinese girl represents only one of 5,000 foreign-born children who, without parents or legal guardians to protect them, are discovered in the United States each year in need of protection. This, is unacceptable treatment. We have a responsibility to do better than this.

Central throughout the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 are two concepts: 1. The United States Government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and 2. in all proceedings and actions, the government should have as a high priority protecting the interests of these children, most of whom are unable to understand the nature of the proceedings in which they are involved.

This bill would ensure that children who are apprehended by immigration authorities are treated humanely and appropriately by: ensuring that eligible unaccompanied alien children are promptly placed in the custody of Office of Refugee Resettlement after they are encountered by immigration officials; ensuring that the children have counsel to represent them in immigration proceedings and matters; authorizing the Director of ORR to provide guardians ad litem for the children to look after their interests; establishing clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements; establishing minimum standards for detention and alternative settings that take into account the special needs of children; improving such children's access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted; setting forth procedures that immigration officers should follow when apprehending unaccompanied alien children at the United states border or at United States ports of entry; establishing procedures to ensure that the true age of an alien who claims to be under the age of 18 is determined; ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Office of Refugee Resettlement, maintain custody over children who are either criminals or threats to national security; and establishing procedures to ensure that certain unaccompanied alien children from Mexico or Canada, encountered along the United States border, are returned to their homes, subject to formal agreements between the United States and those countries providing for their safe return without undue delay.

Without enactment of my legislation, none of these important parameters would be placed on the Office of Refugee Resettlement or the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also includes provisions that provide for the safety of the significant number of unaccompanied alien children who are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. For example, 2 years ago, Phanupong Khaisri, a 2-year old Thai child, was brought to the United States by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring.

The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the United States until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring. Moreover, the legislation would ensure that children are released into safe and humane environments while awaiting a determination of their status when that is appropriate, and it would ensure that the children are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others who might exploit them.

Further, it would require the ORR to take steps to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are protected from smugglers or others who may wish to do them harm, and authorizes reimbursement for State and local expenses associated with caring for unaccompanied alien children.

Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the immigration system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in immigration custody are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home

countries where they may face further human rights abuses.

The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 20032 would require that all unaccompanied alien children in Federal custody by reason of their immigration status have counsel to represent them in any immigration proceedings involving them. It would vest in the Director of ORR responsibility for ensuring that the children have counsel, and it would provide the Director power to establish an infrastructure for developing a system to recruit and support pro bono counsel who can represent these children without cost to them or to the government.

It provides, as a last resort, that counsel could be provided for the children at government expense, capping the fees that such counsel could charge in the event that the government pays for such counsel.

This bill would authorize, but not mandate, the Director of ORR to put into place a system of guardians ad litem who would help the court in determining the best interests of children in U.S. custody.

The vast majority of unaccompanied alien children have been forced to maneuver the immigration system without any representation or without any assistance. This is unacceptable. It results in many children participating in a system without any understanding of the process they are undergoing or the ramifications of their situation.

Under this section, the guardian ad litem would not be working ``for the child.'' Nor would he or she be working for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, he or she would be an impartial observer reporting to the court and to the Office of Refugee Resettlement on what he or she thinks is in the best interest of the child.

The guardians ad litem system could be modeled after any of a number of systems already existing in juvenile courts throughout the American juvenile justice system. This system is not a novel legal concept, but one that is trusted and already in place in every state in proceedings involving juveniles.

Imagine the fear of a foreign-born child, in the United States alone without a parent or guardian. Imagine that child being thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe that our country would have allowed innocent children to be treated in such a manner.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this legislation today. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003 will help our country fulfill the special obligation to these children.

I am proud to have the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the American Bar Association, the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, and many other organizations with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important measure and ensuring that these reforms are finally enacted.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals who live in the Fresno area of California.

Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in he United States for nearly 20 years. They are the parents of Nayely and Cindy, who also stand to benefit from this legislation. The Arreolas also have three United States citizens children: Roberto, who is 11 year old; Daniel, who is 8; and Saray, their youngest daughter, who is six-years old. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola, and her children face deportation.

The story of the Arreola family is quite compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for humanitarian relief. The Arreolas are in uncertain situation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the legal detriment he caused his immigrant clients.

Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program had he known that he could apply for it. Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth to Cindy to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It is quite likely that the family would have qualified for cancellation of removal but for the conduct of their previous attorney.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their deportation would have on their children: three of whom are U.S. citizens; the other two have lived in the United States virtually all of their lives. This country is the only the country they really know.

Nayely, the oldest child, is a junior in high school. She is an outstanding student with a 3.91 Grade Point Average who ranks fourth in her class of approximately 300 students. At her relatively young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through the service she provides her community.

Nayely is a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college degree. Nayely is also President of the key Club, a community service organization. She helps mentor freshmen and participates in several other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest hardship to this family if she is forced to return to Mexico will be her lost opportunity to realize here dreams and further contribute to her community and to this country.

As the principal of her high school wrote, ``[s]he epitomizes what we seek to instill in all of our students. She has accepted the challenges and has made a commitment to better her future, to better her life, and to better herself through education.''

It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as well for all of the members of her fine family.

I understand that the Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent residents here in the United States. Mrs. Arreola also has three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who is a U.S. citizen. It is my understanding that they do not have any family to whom they might return in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was previously employed as a farmworker, but now has his own business repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family.

It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have introduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community and to the United States as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Xavier De La Torre, Principal of Granite Hills High School, as well as the numerous letters of support our office has received from members of the Porterville community be entered into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Nayely's essay entitled ``If I Could Change the World,'' which she wrote at age 15, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to do what should have been done decades ago: fully ban asbestos in the United States. I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 to prohibit this known carcinogen from being used to manufacture products in this country. The bill also bans imports of asbestos products from other countries where asbestos is still legal. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Dayton, Jeffords and Leahy are original cosponsors of this important legislation.

The primary purpose of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 is to require the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to ban the substance within two years. Most people think that asbestos has already been banned. In fact, in 1989 EPA finalized regulations to phase out and ban the substance by 1997. But in 1991, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA's ban, arguing that EPA did not ``first evaluate and then reject the less burdensome alternatives'' under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the first Bush Administration did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. While new uses of asbestos were banned, existing ones were not.

As a result, it is still legal in 2003 to construct buildings in the United States with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and clutch facings.

Asbestos is still not banned, and as a result, we're still using it. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2001, businesses in this country consumed 26 million pounds of chrysotile asbestos to make roofing products, gaskets, friction materials and other products. Last month, my staff walked into a local home improvement store and bought off the shelf roofing sealants made with asbestos. In addition, we are still importing asbestos products from other countries, many of which have less stringent environmental and public health standards.

Everyone knows that asbestos is harmful. The term asbestos, like arsenic, lead, mercury or DDT, is synonymous with poison. Asbestos may well be the most regulated toxic substance that federal and state agencies have ever dealt with. At least eleven different Federal statutes address asbestos. The EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, Mine Safety and Health Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission are only some of the Federal agencies tasked with implementing rules to protect workers and consumers from the dangers of this substance.

But the sheer volume of rules and regulations in place does not guarantee that public health and the environment are being adequately protected. We have significant evidence suggesting that because asbestos is still not banned, we're still not safe from its dangers. I'd like to highlight some of this evidence for my colleagues.

First, workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, ``An estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposure on the job. Heaviest exposures occur in the construction industry, particularly during the removal of asbestos during renovation or demolition. Employees are also likely to be exposed during the manufacture of asbestos products, such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials, and during automotive brake and clutch repair work.''

It is important to remember that there is no known safe threshold level of asbestos exposure. OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter is based on technical measurement limitations. OSHA's limit assumes that workers exposed to this concentration have a lifetime exposure risk of 3 to 5 in 1,000 for cancer and 2 in 1,000 for asbestosis. This is a very high risk compared to the cancer risk levels that are considered acceptable for some environmental cleanups.

The extent to which workers are exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos is especially troublesome when one considers the frequency with which OSHA's standards are violated. On July 31, 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on asbestos and workplace safety. At the hearing I learned from OSHA that since 1995, the agency had cited employers for violations of its asbestos standards 15,691 times. This is astounding given the known dangers of asbestos and the high risks of disease even when OSHA's exposure limit is being met.

As follow-up to the hearing, I asked OSHA to provide more information about asbestos-related violations. In an October 17, 2001 letter to me, Mr. John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote that between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2001, OSHA conducted a total of 190,971 inspections generating a total of 427,786 violations. Of these, 3,000 inspections and 15,691 violations involved asbestos. According to Mr. Henshaw, about 2 percent of inspections and 4 percent of violations were asbestos-related. In his letter to me, Mr. Henshaw wrote, ``OSHA does not consider any level to be an acceptable noncompliance level. We strive for 100 percent compliance.'' Despite OSHA's best intentions, workers are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos.

It is also important to consider that the vast majority of workplaces where asbestos exposure occurs, such as construction jobs and auto repair shops, are not regularly inspected by OSHA. The Administration conducts inspections only in response to complaints or as a result of referrals from law enforcement or the media. Many more violations of the standard occur in the real world than are actually recorded by regulators. Many employees likely do not contact OSHA about potential asbestos exposure on the job because they think asbestos has been banned long ago and is no longer a problem.

But asbestos in the workplace is clearly still a problem. Recent news investigations provide more evidence that workers are being exposed to dangerous levels of this mineral. According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on November 16, 2000, ``During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26 percent to 63.8 percent.''

When dust with these concentrations of asbestos in them is disturbed, airborne concentrations of asbestos occur that are well above OSHA's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter. Under current OSHA regulations, if airborne asbestos concentrations exceed this level, employers must conduct air monitoring, take measures to reduce asbestos emissions, post warning signs and record concentrations of airborne asbestos. Workers are supposed to wear respirators and protective clothing and are required to undergo long term medical monitoring.

Now I recognize that much of the exposure to asbestos in the workplace comes from asbestos products installed years, and in many cases, decades ago. By one estimate, about 30 million tons of asbestos was used in this country between 1900 and 1980. Asbestos in place, in our buildings, schools and homes, will be with us for decades to come.

But given the known dangers of this mineral, why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose when there are perfectly acceptable substitutes? In retrospect, it is tragic that asbestos was so widely used during the 20th century, for the

economic and public health impacts have been disastrous. One very important step in overcoming the problems caused by asbestos is to stop adding to the problem--however incrementally--by continuing to use this dangerous mineral in products on purpose.

I'd like to point out some additional evidence supporting the need to ban asbestos in the United States and to raise awareness about this issue. Most of my colleagues are familiar with the tragedy in Libby, MT, where hundreds of workers and their families suffer from asbestos- related diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite.

For decades, the W.R. Grace mine in Libby supplied about 80 percent of the vermiculite used in this country. W.R. Grace very successfully marketed its product, without any warning labels, even though the company was well aware its product was contaminated with this known carcinogen. Asbestos-contaminated ore was shipped to more than 300 sites around the country for processing and use in industrial and consumer products. According to the EPA, 14 of these sites are so contaminated with asbestos that they still need to be cleaned up, even though the Libby mine closed in 1990. While this is a problem that came from a small mining town in Montana, the ramifications and consequences are clearly national in scope.

In addition, vermiculite from Libby is still around and is still a threat to public health. It is estimated that tens of millions of homes, schools and businesses contain insulation made with Libby vermiculite, known as Zonolite. A recent study conducted for EPA, entitled Asbestos Exposure Assessment for Vermiculite Attic Insulation, found that Zonolite in homes today contains up to 2 percent asbestos. This study included tests on Zonolite insulation from Seattle Public Utilities and from a home in Washington State. It found that when this insulation was disturbed, airborne concentrations of 3.3 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeters were measured. In other words, handling Zonolite asbestos can cause levels of asbestos in the air that significantly exceed OSHA's exposure limit for workers. Even more troubling, perhaps, the study found ``vermiculite that tests non-detect for asbestos by bulk analysis can still generate airborne asbestos concentrations when disturbed.'' When vermiculite without significant amounts of asbestos in bulk was disturbed, concentrations of asbestos in the air up to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeters were detected. This means that even vermiculite with only trace amounts of asbestos in bulk can generate unhealthy concentrations of asbestos in the air.

Yesterday EPA launched a national consumer education campaign warning people not to disturb Zonolite attic insulation if they have it in their homes. The agency also warned people not to let their children play in attics with vermiculite for fear of asbestos exposure. EPA has developed a consumer education brochure and has created an asbestos hotline for people to call for more information. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have joined EPA in this education effort by creating materials to educate consumers and workers about the dangers of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.

While we need to ensure that we are no longer adding asbestos to our products on purpose, we also need to ensure that asbestos in harmful concentrations isn't ending up in our consumer products by accident. I am glad EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. This is an important first step in dealing with just one aspect of the legacy created by W.R. Grace in Libby.

There is another important reason to ban asbestos that I would like to share with my colleagues. As I mentioned previously, the United States is still importing products that contain asbestos. Unfortunately, we do not have precise statistics on which products coming into this country contain the deadly mineral. The Department of Commerce's import database does not distinguish between asbestos- containing products and products containing asbestos substitutes. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in 2002 this country imported more than 44,000 tons of asbestos-cement products, some of which may have contained cellulose instead of asbestos.

With increased globalization and international trade, U.S. imports of asbestos containing consumer and industrial products will continue to rise--unless we prohibit these products from crossing our borders in the first place.

Although we do not have accurate numbers for the extent to which asbestos products are flowing across our borders, we do know that asbestos is being heavily marketed to developing countries. According to an August 2, 1999 USA Today article, ``As asbestos demand has plummeted in the industrialized world the past 25 years, it has soared in many developing nations and formerly communist countries. Its use in these countries is largely unregulated, haphazard and deadly.''

A more recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares the asbestos industry to the tobacco industry. The February 20, 2001 article by Doctors Joseph LaDou, Philip Landrigan, John C. Bailar III, Vito Foa and Arthur Frank reads:

``The commercial tactics of the asbestos industry are very similar to those of the tobacco industry. In the absence of international sanctions, losses resulting from reduced cigarette consumption in the developed countries are offset by heavy selling to developing nations. In a similar fashion, the developed world has responded to the asbestos health catastrophe with a progressive ban on the use of asbestos. In response, the asbestos industry is progressively transferring its commercial activities and the health hazards to the developing countries.''

Banning asbestos in the United States sends an important message to the rest of the world. The asbestos industry will no longer be able to justify its marketing to developing countries by pointing out that asbestos is still legal in the U.S., and therefore, it must be safe. More than 30 countries have already banned asbestos, and it is time for this country to follow suit. It is our moral responsibility as the world's strongest economy, the most powerful Nation and a leader in environmental protection and public health to ban this harmful substance.

That is why today I am introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act. The legislation has five main parts. First, this bill protects public health by doing what the EPA tried to do 14 years ago: ban asbestos in the United States. The legislation requires EPA to ban it within two years of passage of the Act. As under the regulations EPA finalized in 1989, companies may file for an exemption to the ban if there is no substitute material available.

Second, the bill requires EPA to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos policy and to have the National Academy of Sciences conduct an asbestos study. In response to the 2001 EPA Inspector General's report on Libby, Montana, the EPA promised to convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on asbestos and non-regulated fibers. But instead of convening a high level panel, EPA hired a non-profit organization, the Global Environment and Technology Foundation, to develop an asbestos policies focus group. Just yesterday EPA released GETF's Asbestos Strategies Report. I am very pleased that the Report recommends several aspects of the Ban Asbestos in America Act, including that Congress pass legislation to ban asbestos.

While the recommendations are certainly helpful in providing guidance to EPA, Congress and other federal agencies on the next steps to address asbestos, the GETF report does not replace a full fledged Blue Ribbon Panel. The Ban Asbestos in America Act codifies creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel as EPA first committed to in 2001. The panel will include participation from the Department of Labor and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It will review the current laws and rules in place to protect workers and consumers, and make recommendations for improving protections within 2 years of passage of the Act.

In addition, the bill calls for EPA to have the NAS conduct a study on the current state of the science relating to the human health effects of exposure to asbestos and other durable fibers. The NAS study shall also include recommendations for a uniform system of asbestos exposure standards and for a uniform system to create protocols to

detect and measure asbestos. As I mentioned previously, asbestos is regulated under multiple statutes. There are different standards within EPA and across Federal agencies, and agencies rely on different protocols to identify the substance. The NAS shall be required to submit the study to EPA, other federal agencies and Congress within 18 months of passage of the Act.

Third, the legislation requires a survey to determine which products contain asbestos, either on purpose or as a contaminant. EPA will be required to conduct this review with input from the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission.

The bill directs the EPA to conduct a survey on the status of asbestos-containing products, such as roofing materials, brake pads and gaskets, which contain asbestos on purpose. EPA must also study contaminant-asbestos products, such as some insulation and horticultural products, which contain asbestos as a contaminant of another substance. The study will examine how people use these products and the extent to which people are exposed to harmful levels of asbestos. The study must be finalized within 18 months to inform the Blue Ribbon Panel and the education campaign.

Fourth, based on the results of the study, EPA shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including those in homes and workplaces. The agency shall give priority to those products posing the greatest risk, as determined by the study required by the bill. The education campaign must be conducted within 2 years of passage of the bill.

EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall still be required to conduct a national education campaign about vermiculite insulation within 6 months of passage of the Act. As many as 35 million homes and businesses may contain asbestos-contaminated insulation made with vermiculite from Libby. This requirement is still in the bill despite EPA's recent announcement of an education campaign about vermiculite attic insulation. This will ensure EPA's long-term commitment to educating the public.

Finally, the Ban Asbestos in America Act increases the federal commitment to finding new treatments for the terrible diseases caused by asbestos. At least 2,000 people per year die from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lungs and internal organs caused by exposure to asbestos. The legislation would direct the head of NIH to ``expand, intensify and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.'' The Centers for Disease Control would be required to create a National Mesothelioma Registry to improve tracking of the disease, which in many cases goes undiagnosed and thus unrecorded. In addition, the bill creates 10 mesothelioma treatment centers around the country to improve treatments for and awareness of this fatal cancer.

Our hope is that by continuing to work together, we will build support for the Ban Asbestos in America Act. If we can get this legislation passed, fewer people will be exposed to asbestos, fewer people will contract asbestos diseases in the first place, and those who already have asbestos diseases will receive treatments to prolong and improve quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

In the meantime, we should do all we can to ensure that the rules in place to protect workers, consumers and schoolchildren from asbestos are followed and are strengthened if necessary. We also need to make sure that Federal agencies are given adequate resources to fully implement Congress' many mandates.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Ms. Snowe, to introduce the Fishing Quota Act of 2003, legislation to establish national criteria governing the use of individual fishing quota IFQ systems. Work began in earnest on this bipartisan bill in the Commerce Committee last spring, as the expiration of the national moratorium on the use of IFQs approached, and small boat fishermen voiced concerns that existing legislative criteria governing the use of IFQs would not offer sufficient protection to communities. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Snowe for her efforts to work with me and with other members of the Commerce Committee on this legislation, which draws from separate IFQ legislation that both Senator Snowe and I introduced beginning in the 106th Congress.

The IFQ moratorium established under the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act was set to expire September 30, 2000. Senator Snowe and I supported a 2-year extension of that moratorium to allow for hearings and full consultation with affected groups on the issues surrounding IFQs. Our discussions focused on the need to provide regional flexibility to use IFQs as a management tool, while providing national ``rules of the road.'' Such rules of the road would ensure IFQ systems developed after expiration of the moratorium are adopted with the support of the fishery, allocate quota fairly and equitably, address region-specific needs, further the conservation and management goals of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, prevent consolidation of quota, address the needs of small fishing communities, and recognize both the public nature of the resource and that issuance of an IFQ does not give rise to a compensable property right.

To develop such rules, we worked with fellow Commerce Committee members, including Senators Breaux, Lott, Boxer, Stevens, and Cantwell, consulted with interested groups, and obtained technical advice from the National Marine Fisheries Service. While New England has historically been opposed to IFQs, other regions are interested in utilizing IFQ programs in certain fisheries. I believe the resulting bill provides a balance between the need to provide national policy guidance that considers the concerns of communities and harvesters, but allows for development of IFQ systems, where appropriate, on a fishery- by-fishery basis. This preserves the balanced regional approach to fishery management that Congress intended in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I also want to clarify that this bill does not authorize the establishment of ``processor quota,'' and relates only to issuance of harvester quota.

The bill Senator Snowe and I are introducing today sets forth a set of national criteria that councils wishing to adopt IFQs would follow. Importantly, this bill contains a provision that directs councils to consider the use of community or area-based approaches and strategies that would preserve the vitality of small fishing communities, including the allocation of quota to a fishing community. It also directs councils to consider use of other management measures, including those that would facilitate formation of fishery cooperative arrangements, taking account of the dependence of coastal communities on these fisheries.

This bill addresses many of the concerns raised by fishermen, and I understand the many concerns of small fisherman in New England regarding the use of IFQs. I believe this bill gives fishermen the power to decide whether to implement an IFQ program and ensures that those who do will operate under a fair system. First, no region could implement an IFQ system without approval of a two-thirds majority of eligible permit holders through a referendum process run by the Secretary of Commerce. In addition, any IFQ system developed under the legislation would have to meet a set of national criteria. These national criteria would include: (1) ensuring a fair and equitable initial allocation of quota, including the establishment of an appeals process for qualification and allocation decisions, taking into account present and historic participation in the fishery; (2) establishing limits necessary to prevent inequitable concentration of quota share; (3) preventing any person from acquiring an ``excessive share''; (4) considering allocation of a portion of the annual harvest specifically to small fishermen, skippers, crew members, fishing communities, or categories of vessels or gear types; and (5) providing for revocation of quota if the owner is no longer an active fisherman.

I also believe this bill responds to concerns that IFQ systems would undermine the national interest in conserving fishery resources held in the public trust. In order to respond to those concerns, the bill would: (1) specify that an IFQ is a permit under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and does not confer any right of compensation or any right, title or interest to any fish before it is harvested; (2) established that the quota expires after 10 years, unless extended by a fishery management plan; (3) require that the systems promote management measures to improve the conservation and management of the fishery, including reduction of bycatch; (4) provide for regular review and evaluation of the system, including specifying actions to be taken for any failure to meet the criteria; (5) require that the systems provide for effective enforcement, monitoring, and management, including use of observers; and (6) require that quota be revoked from individuals found to be subject to civil penalties under section 308 of the Magnuson- Stevens Act.

The bill also would require a 5-year recurring independent review of IFQ systems by the National Research Council, to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of such systems and determine who the systems contribute to improved management, conservation and safety; (2) evaluate the social, economic and biological consequences of the systems, including economic impacts on fishing communities; (3) evaluate the costs of implementation; and (4) provide recommendations to ensure the systems meet Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and the goals of the plans.

I believe this legislation provides guidelines for the use of IFQs that will help ensure the health of our marine fisheries. During the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our

Nation's fisheries were at a crossroads, and action was required to remedy our marine resource management problems, to preserve the way of life in our coastal communities, and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of our marine resources for future generations and for the economic good of the Nation. We must stay the course, and this bill will help us do just that. I remain committed to the goal of establishing biologically and economically sustainable fisheries so that fishing will continue to be an important part of the culture and economy of coastal communities throughout Massachusetts, as well as the economy of the Nation.

Mr. President, there are now nearly 200,000 American veterans today who are forced to wait at least 6 months for their first visit with a Department of Veterans Affairs physician. Despite having served their country and been promised health benefits, these veterans are receiving deferred and rationed health care because of chronic underfunding and bureaucratic red tape. It amounts to a broken promise with men and women who have served in our armed forces. To help ensure that our veterans receive the care they need and have been guaranteed, today I am pleased to introduce the Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003.

Veterans enrolled in the VA health care program are entitled to a prescription drug benefit. This is an essential benefit given the importance of pharmaceuticals in health care today. However, there's a bureaucratic catch: the benefit only applies to prescriptions written by a VA physician, and there are nearly 200,000 veterans who now wait 6 months or longer for their first visit with a VA physician. For those veterans in need of medicine and waiting months on end to see a VA physician, the benefit has little value.

The VA has reported to Congress that, while it has no exact figure, it estimates that tens of thousands of the veterans now on the waiting list are there primarily to access their prescription drug benefit. In many of these cases, veterans have already seen a private physician and have a prescription. But in order to use the VA pharmacy and receive their prescription benefit, these individuals must duplicate their health care visits and see a VA physician. This delays health care benefits for far too many veterans.

The Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003 would permit veterans already on the waiting list to fill a prescription written by a private physician at the VA pharmacy.

Specifically, the Veterans' Prescription Drug Reform Act of 2003 would give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to permit veterans on the waiting list for their first appointment with a VA physician at the date of enactment to use the VA pharmacy to fill prescriptions written by a private physician. It would also preserve the core healthcare mission of the VA by limiting this initiative only to those currently waiting for their first appointment. The proposal calls for a report to Congress in 1 year so that its potential expansion can be evaluated.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has told Congress that he would support such a proposal, and I look forward to working with Senator Harkin, who joins me in sponsoring this legislation, and my other colleagues in the Senate on this common-sense approach to reducing the lengthy wait-lines for veterans' healthcare.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Smith, as well as the cosponsors of our legislation, Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Daschle, Murray, and Stabenow in introducing the Native American Small Business Development Act.

As many of my colleagues are aware, last Congress the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously passed nearly identical legislation, S. 2335, yet the bill was not taken up by the full Senate. Today, Senator Johnson, Senator Smith and I are reintroducing this bill because we recognize that there is an even a greater need for this legislation on tribal lands across the Nation. The economy continues to slump, access to capital is even more limited, and state funding for small business initiatives is being pulled back.

According to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ``three year average poverty rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives [from 1998-2000] was 25.9 percent. Higher than for any other race groups.'' With an unemployment rate well above the national average and household income at just three-quarters of the national average, Native American communities need a commitment from the Federal government that we will help them, particularly during these difficult economic times. To reaffirm this commitment, the Johnson-Kerry-Smith bill provides Native Americans the resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities of entrepreneurship.

Mr. President, this legislation bears the same name as legislation that recently passed the House, H.R. 1166, which was reintroduced by Congressman Tom Udall, a recognized leader in promoting the interests of American Indians. I would like to thank Congressman Udall for his work in stewarding the Native American Small Business Development Act through the House, this Congress and last, and for his assistance in working with Senators Johnson and Smith and me in drafting the Senate version of our legislation. And I would specifically like to thank Senator Smith for his continued support on this issue.

I would again like to thank the National Indian Business Association, the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, the Association of Small Business Development Centers, the Oregon Native American Business Entrepreneurial Network (ONABEN), Native American Management Services, Inc., and all of the tribes that met with us or provided information to help in the drafting of this legislation.

The Senate version of the Native American Small Business Development Act, while incorporating the heart of the Udall legislation, is more comprehensive and provides greater assistance to Native American communities. Senator Johnson, who serves on the Indian Affairs Committee, and I, as the lead Democrat on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, were able to combine the resources and experiences of our committees in developing this legislation.

Mr. President, our need to fashion a more comprehensive business assistance package for Native American small businesses stems in part from a growing lack of commitment from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to our Native American communities under this Administration.

While I applaud the Bush Administration for responding to congressional requests by including $1 million in the Administration's FY 2003 budget request for Native American outreach, I was disappointed that it did not seek the full level of $2.5 million requested in a letter I sent with my colleagues Senators Daschle, Wellstone, Johnson, Bingaman and Baucus. Our request specifically sought funding for the SBA's Tribal Business Information Center (TBIC) program, an initiative started and successfully operated under the Clinton Administration. The TBIC program was designed to address the unique conditions faced by American Indians when they seek to start or expand small businesses.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Administration has eliminated all funding for Native American outreach in FY2004. With an average unemployment rate on reservations as high as 43 percent, it is inconceivable that two years of outreach is sufficient to have met our shared goal of building sustainable economic opportunities in those communities.

Mr. President, I do not believe that anyone in this Congress would dispute that economic development in Indian Country has often been difficult to achieve and that one important way to help American Indians who live on reservations is to provide them with assistance to open and run their own small businesses. Helping Native Americans open and run small businesses not only instills a sense of pride in the owner and his or her community, it also provides much-needed job opportunities, as well as other economic benefits.

Although underfunded, the TBIC program has provided assistance to a number of small businesses on Indian reservations. TBICs have the support of the American Indian communities they serve because they provide desperately

needed, culturally tailored business development assistance in those communities. The Administration should be seeking to strengthen its commitment to programs that assist Native American communities. Unfortunately, the SBA cut off TBIC funding on March 31, 2002, and now 14 months later, has not met a request by a bipartisan group of Senators to begin the reprogramming process in order to keep the TBICs open.

The Native American Small Business Development Act will ensure that the SBA's programs to assist Native American communities cannot be dissolved by making the SBA's Office of Native American Affairs (ONAA) and its Assistant Administrator permanent. Our legislation would also create a statutory grant program, known as the Native American Development grant program, to assist Native Americans. It would also establish two pilot programs to try new means of assisting Native American communities and require Native American communities to be consulted regarding the future of SBA programs designed to assist them. In short, this legislation will ensure that our Native American communities receive the adequate assistance they need to help start and grow small businesses.

The ONAA will be responsible for helping Native Americans and Native American communities start, operate, and grow small businesses; develop management and technical skills; seek out Federal procurement opportunities; increase employment opportunities through the start and expansion of small business concerns; and increase their access to capital markets.

To be selected to serve as the Assistant Administrator for ONAA, a candidate must have knowledge of Native American cultures and experience providing culturally tailored small business development assistance to Native Americans. Under our legislation, the Assistant Administrator would be statutorily required to consult with Tribal Colleges and Tribal Governments, Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) and Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO) when carrying out responsibilities under this legislation, which would give Native American communities a true voice within the SBA. The Assistant Administrator for ONAA would be responsible for administering the Native American Development program and the pilot programs created by the Native American Small Business Development Act.

The Native American Development program is designed to be the SBA's primary program for providing business development assistance to Native American communities. To offer this support, to the SBA will provide financial assistance in establish and keep Native American Business Centers (NABC) in operation. Financial assistance under the Native American Development program would be available to Tribal Governments and Tribal Colleges. Unlike the SBA's TBIC program, however, ANCs and NHOs would also be eligible for the grants.

NABCs would address the unique conditions faced by reservation-based American Indians, as well as Native Hawaiians and Native Alaskans, in their efforts to create, develop and expand small business concerns. Grant funding would be used by the NABCs to provide culturally tailored financial education assistance, management education assistance, and marketing education assistance.

The first pilot program under the legislation establishes a Native American development grant. This grant is modeled after the Udall legislation and is designed to bring the expertise of SBA's Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) to Native American Communities. Additionally, any private nonprofit organization, which has members of an Indian tribe comprising a majority of its board of governors or is an NHO or an ANC, may also apply for the grant. Nonprofits were included in the Senate version thanks to the thoughtful input of Senator Cantwell. Many American Indian communities in Washington state are served by an organization called ONABEN, which provides SBDC-like services to Native American communities in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Organizations like ONABEN, which also has the strong support of Senator Smith, should be encouraged to continue their good work assisting Native American communities, and including them in the grant program available to SBDCs was an important addition to the legislation.

Finally, our legislation establishes a second pilot program to try a unique experiment in Indian Country. Grant funding would be made available to establish American Indian Tribal Assistance Centers. These centers will consist of joint entitles, such as a partnership between an NABC, a Native American development center (which receive grants from the Department of Commerce) and possibly an SBDC. The purpose of this grant is to coordinate experts from various entities to provide culturally tailored business development assistance to prospective and current owners of small business concerns on or near Tribal Lands.

Mr. President, I would again like to thank Senators Johnson and Smith and all of the cosponsors of this important legislation to assist our Native American communities. I would also, again like to thank Congressman Udall for taking the lead in the House on providing critical assistance for small businesses in Native American communities. I would urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation to help us fulfill our commitment to Native American communities.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Defense authorization bill that we are debating today and for the remainder of this week.

I first want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their courtesy, for their thoughtfulness, and for their collegiality in the conduct of the committee in the preparation of this bill. They are two Senators I respect and admire greatly. I thank them for their help and participation.

This is, overall, a very good bill that meets the needs of our fighting men and women. I have some reservations which I will talk about tonight, and during the course of the week I will suggest some improvements in the bill. But overall, this represents a thorough and consistent and appropriate discharge of our responsibility to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Forces are the best prepared and best cared for in the world.

Let me also say this year I had the privilege and the opportunity to serve as the ranking member of the Emerging Threat and Capability Subcommittee. I had the pleasure of working with Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. I also want to thank Senator Roberts for his courtesy and thoughtfulness and for his collegiality. He created a cooperative spirit on the committee which resulted in legislation that is both thoughtful and which I think is a vast improvement for the men and women of our military services.

The package supported and presented by the subcommittee dealt with a range of subjects. The subcommittee itself was created 4 years ago to deal with new emerging threats and our response to these threats. The subcommittee looked at issues such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and information warfare, and it also focused on ways in which we can respond to these threats.

One of the areas, for example, is the Defense Science and Technology Program--providing the research and the analysis that makes our forces the most technologically advanced in the world.

Another area we are concerned about is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. There is a rather simple and obvious point: If we can reduce the threats, that is a better way than to respond to those threats if they are poised against us.

We are also concerned about our special operations forces. I think we have all seen in the past few months how effective and how important these forces are. They really are the tip of the spear when it comes to our efforts on the war on terrorism.

Needless to say, the Emerging Threats Subcommittee is obviously involved in many issues that are of critical importance today.

Let me speak just briefly about some of the issues as we approach the committee markup.

Science and technology is a critical component of our warfighting capability. This was brought home to me graphically in August of 2001. About 20-plus years ago, I commanded an infantry company--a parachute company--of the 82nd Airborne Division. And in August of 2001, I went back to Fort Bragg to watch a live fire demonstration by a division of the 82nd Airborne Division. I was, of course, very pleased with the toughness and skills of the paratroopers. But I was also impressed with the technology. Each soldier had a night vision device, and each soldier had a laser-aiming device on their weapon. Twenty-five years ago, there was one star-light scope for the whole platoon. It was a big, bulky device which we carried around and used sparingly. There was no laser-aiming device on their weapons.

These are graphic examples of the impact of science and technology on our ability to fight. They have made our soldiers, marines, and airmen the most formidable in the world because when we couple this technology with their skills and spirit and their courage, they are unstoppable.

I am pleased this bill includes provisions that strengthen the coordination between the Science and Technology Program. We really want to ensure that we get the maximum value from our technological investment.

I am also very pleased the bill includes Senator Lieberman's legislation which will increase research on technologies to help improve communications and networking and to help address our bandwidth crisis in the field.

Again, 25 years ago when I commanded troops, bandwidth was a concept which no one talked about. Today, it is an item that is critical to the success of any military force.

When members of the committee go out--as I know my colleagues do--and visit troops and talk to commanding officers, one of their consistent complaints is, We just do not have enough bandwidth. We don't have enough space on the spectrum to push out all the digital information we have to all of our warfighters instantaneously.

So I think Senator Lieberman's proposal will give us an added impetus to examine these issues of bandwidth and conductivity. It is literally the electronic backbone of our military forces. There are some issues of concern which I have with respect to science and technology. All of our experts looking at the appropriate level of funding for science and technology suggest that we should be investing about 3 percent of the defense budget in those programs. Secretary Rumsfeld has said the Quadrennial Defense Review made that point, and the Defense Science Board has endorsed this laudable goal of 3 percent expenditure on science and technology. However, last year the final defense budget did not reach 3 percent, and this year the President's request was $1 billion below last year's vital defense budget.

While I am pleased to note that this bill adds nearly $500 million to the Defense Science and Technology Program and supports significant investments in university research, advanced research to support special operations, and advanced undersea warfare technologies, the funding levels fall short of this 3 percent.

I think we have to maintain robust investment in our science and technology. We tried to close the gap, but there is still a gap. I hope in the next reauthorization--indeed in the conference--we can try to close this gap.

In the area of nonproliferation programs, we all understand that weapons

of mass destruction is one of the key threats, particularly if they get into the hands of terrorists. One of the most cost-effective ways to deal with this issue of nonproliferation is to support the Threat Reduction Program. I am pleased to report again that this bill authorizes full funding of these threat reduction and nonproliferation programs, including the Nunn-Lugar program.

This full funding is critical if we are going to eliminate the proliferation threat and if we are going to lower the danger that these materials pose to us, particularly if they get into the hands of terrorists.

Also, the bill includes authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction Program funds outside the former Soviet Union under appropriate circumstances, as requested by the President.

Again, I think we have to recognize there are many places in the world, regrettably, where material could fall into the wrong hands. This gives the President authority for a much wider geographic approach on proliferation.

One of the problems we particularly worry about is the presence of a vast stockpile of lethal, chemical weapons--some of them small enough to fit into a briefcase--in Russia. This is the residue of years and years of Soviet research.

Under the Nunn-Lugar program, we have a project to destroy all those weapons so they cannot be used and do not fall into the hands of terrorists. There is a set of conditions that requires a Presidential certification before the money can be spent, but this bill provides the President a 1-year waiver of the certification so funds can be used to destroy these chemical weapons. Again, I thank Chairman Roberts, particularly, for his consideration of this request and for his willingness to provide this 1-year waiver.

As I said before, our special operations community each day demonstrates their incredible value in our war against terrorism. In recognition of the expanded role of the special operations forces, the Secretary of Defense has declared that rather than simply being a supporting command, special operations would be a command in itself.

Let me try to parse that. Before special operations command supported the CINCs, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM. Today, they not only support these CINCs, but they are their own command in and of themselves with new responsibilities.

I applaud this decision, but I believe Congress should have a better appreciation of the new role that special operations command is taking on. Therefore, the committee included, at my suggestion, a recommendation so the Secretary of Defense can report to us information regarding this new role.

The information would include items such as the military strategy for utilizing special operations troops to fight the global war on terrorism and how the proposal contributes to the overall national security strategy with regard to the war on terrorism; the scope of the authorities granted to the commander of the special operations command by the Secretary of Defense; the operational and legal parameters within which special operations forces will exercise these authorities; the impact on existing special operations missions; the decisionmaking mechanisms, to include consultation with Congress, that will be involved in authorizing, planning, and conducting these operations; and future organizational and resource requirements for conducting the global counterterrorism mission.

I believe the answers to these questions will help us frame our oversight responsibility, and I also think it will help provide the details for the special operations commander and the Department of Defense in relation to their responsibilities and their missions in this new responsibility they have been given.

These are just some of the highlights with respect to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I want my colleagues to know of these threats. There are other issues I would like to comment upon in addition to those related to my responsibilities on the subcommittee.

There was, in the committee, a proposal to, in my view, change the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. I thank my colleagues because, through collaboration with Senators Ensign, Allen, and others, we were able to do what I think the committee wanted to do: to provide the opportunity to temporarily suspend these regulations if property is needed by a State for emergency purposes but not to undermine completely and irrevocably the responsibility we have to provide suitable excess Government facilities for homeless purposes. I am very pleased and proud the committee was so responsive and so cooperative in that regard.

I also included in the bill an amendment which again was adopted unanimously--I thank my colleagues--that would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide guidelines to the Defense Policy Board. This is an advisory committee consisting of distinguished Americans who provide advice and insight, without compensation, to the Secretary of Defense. It is a very important board but recently it has come under some criticism.

I think in order to dispel that criticism but also to convince and assure the public that access to information and access to key decisionmakers is not being used for profit-making purposes but solely is an exercise in the patriotism of the individual members of the board, I ask that the Secretary of Defense provide guidelines. I hope these guidelines are forthcoming. I think they will be useful. I am pleased they are now included within the bill.

Let me turn to several other topics quickly because I see my colleagues are also in the Chamber to speak.

Within the context of missile defense is an area of the bill that I have some grave reservations. We have decided to pursue missile defense. The President has made the decision, and it is his prerogative to do so, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The question before us today is, will we do this in a logical, thorough, systematic way? Will we do it in a way in which we can assure the American public we are proceeding with all deliberate speed but also in a way that we can justify a product that eventually will be useful to national defense? These are the basic issues that come before us today.

The President has announced, however, that he intends to field a national missile defense system by September 2004, despite the fact the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded, in his fiscal year 2002 annual report, that the system ``has yet to demonstrate significant operational capability.'' So the plan, in effect, is to field the system before we even know if it will work.

I think that raises grave questions about the usefulness of such a system and grave questions about the level of funding that is going to support a system if we are not ready to declare it operationally useful yet we are ready to declare it will be deployed.

We also understand after 9/11 there are other ways to attack the homeland of the United States and that it is not just through the use of long-range missiles. We have to, in our debate and our discussions and our decisions, be very careful with resources that could be spent in other ways to protect our country and our homeland, particularly.

One of the other aspects of the system that is proposed for deployment is that the decision has been made to field this system without a radar capable of distinguishing between a warhead and a decoy. The radar is a key aspect of any missile defense system.

Indeed, the Clinton administration was criticized very harshly for their national Missile Defense Program, yet this administration has decided to deploy a system that appears, at least on the surface, to be far less capable than the one proposed by President Clinton, particularly when it comes to the radar architecture.

Another issue, with respect to missile defense, is the decision to significantly reduce the number of tests. Ironically, it seems that one of the byproducts of the President's decision to rapidly field a national missile defense is a concomitant reduction in the amount of testing. It seems to me that is sort of doing things exactly the wrong way; that if you are going to accelerate deployment, you would accelerate testing also.

I believe if we are going to have confidence in a system that we field, we have to make the investment in testing now, and not just simply reply upon our faith in technology that has not yet been adequately tested.

Originally, 20 national missile defense tests had been scheduled to occur between mid-2002 and 2007, but after the President's deployment decision, 9 of these 20 tests were canceled without explanation. Furthermore, the scheduled date to complete this new, very minimal test plan is now 2009 instead of 2007. That is 5 years after the advertised deployment of this system in 2004.

We have to recognize this Missile Defense Program is the largest single acquisition program in the Department of Defense, with a budget request of more than $9 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.

For perspective, this funding could buy 9 DDG-51-class destroyers, 45 F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, or more than 2,800 Stryker armored vehicles. So the decisions we make are not without cost, not without opportunity costs.

The investment we make in missiles means, quite literally, we cannot buy new destroyers; today we cannot buy more F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft; we cannot buy more Stryker armored vehicles. So again, I think we have to look very carefully at the deployment, at the testing.

I think we are all committed to the notion of someday putting in place a missile defense system that will effectively defend the United States, but we cannot do it hastily, and we cannot do it simply on a wish that it works. I believe we have to prove it works before we deploy it or simply declare it is deployed.

Over the last several years, we have tried to put some structure, if you will, in the Missile Defense Program. For example, at the beginning of fiscal year 2002, Congress required that the Bush administration establish cost, schedule, testing, and performance goals for missile defense, and we directed the General Accounting Office to review whether progress was being made toward these established goals.

By the end of 2002, the Bush administration had still not established any meaningful goals for missile defense. Consequently, in November 2002, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO wrote to the committee to say that since no goals had been established, GAO could not complete its review.

I think, at a minimum, there should be costs, there should be schedules, there should be goals, certainly at a level so the GAO can at least offer a preliminary assessment of whether these goals are being achieved or what effort must be expended to achieve these goals. That is something that has not been done.

I support prudent research and development and testing on national missile defense, but I think ultimately we all want to assure the American people that when we put something in the field, it will work, and that we know precisely what it will do when it is in the field. I don't think that is too much to ask the administration.

Finally, let me cover a topic that will receive a great deal of attention over the next couple days. That is the issue of nuclear policy. I have grave concerns over some of the provisions in the bill. Under the guise of maintaining flexibility and keeping all options open, this bill approves and encourages the administration to continue its push to develop, test, deploy, and possibly use nuclear weapons. I heard my colleague Senator Levin earlier today referencing the quote by former Ambassador Brooks, the head of NSSA, who said his bias is to something that can be used. For many decades, our bias was against even thinking about the use of nuclear weapons if we could avoid it.

One of the consequences of the proposal for a low-yield nuclear weapon, for a robust nuclear earth penetrator is, if not a fact, an observation that as you make weapons such that their collateral damage is minimal, there is a tendency to use them. We have to ask ourselves in our recent conflict in Baghdad, would we have dropped dumb bombs in the middle of crowded neighborhoods in an attempt to attack the leadership of Iraq? It would have been a much harder call. But because we had precision weapons with low collateral damage, as a result the call was much easier--a tough call, nevertheless, but easier.

I fear that as we move down this path for low-yield nuclear weapons, more usable nuclear weapons, the threshold, the inhibition against use will come down also. This is just not another tool in our tool kit. Nuclear weapons have been, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a weapon every nation has tried to avoid using in combat. I hope we can continue that effort, but I fear the language, the momentum, the incentives that have created these exceptions in the bill are driving us down the wrong path.

We should respond by amending the legislation to reflect the continuing desire to put nuclear weapons outside of use, to delegitimize their use in conflict. We will have opportunity over the next several days to debate in much more detail the issue of nuclear weapons, the issue of missile defense.

I believe this legislation overall is sound. If we could make successful amendments to some of the provisions with respect to missile defense and particularly the provisions with respect to nuclear weapons, we can send to conference a bill of which we will all be very proud. I hope in the next few days we can do that.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for their thoughtful approach and for their continued efforts over the next few days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing today to provide a cost-of-living, COLA, adjustment for certain veterans' benefits programs. This COLA adjustment would affect payments made to nearly 3 million Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, beneficiaries, and would be reflected in beneficiary checks that are received in January 2004, and thereafter.

An annual cost-of-living adjustment in veterans benefits is an important tool which protects veterans' cash-transfer benefits against the corrosive effects of inflation. The principal programs affected by the adjustment would be compensation paid to disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation, DIC, payments made to the surviving spouses, minor children and other dependents of persons who died in service, or who died after service as a result of service- connected injuries or diseases.

The President's budget anticipates inflation to be at a two percent level at the close of this year as measured by the consumer price index, CPI, published by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. If inflation is held to the 2 percent level, that will be the level of COLA adjustment under this legislation since it ties the increase directly to the CPI increase as measured by the Department of Labor. Whatever the CPI increase eventually turns out to be, however, veterans' and survivors' benefits payments must be protected by being increased by a like amount. The Congress already concurred with that judgment with the recent passage of the budget resolution; that resolution sets aside the funds necessary to finance the COLA increase envisioned by this legislation.

I ask my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I have introduced today to further honor the sacrifices made by the family members of those who were killed or injured in service to our country. As we celebrate the victory won on the battlefield in Iraq, we must remember that the loss of American lives-- even a relative few--was a sobering price to pay.

The loss of life in service is most acutely felt by the spouses and children left behind. For them, we must make every effort--however inadequate that effort might be in comparison to the enormity of their loss--to recognize their needs. This bill attempts to do so by increasing educational assistance benefits for survivors, by providing additional dependency and indemnity compensation payments for

bereaved families, by authorizing a remarried spouse to be buried in a national cemetery with his or her deceased veteran-spouse, and by providing health, training and compensation benefits to children of certain veterans who served in or near the Korean demilitarized zone, DMZ, in the late 1960s, and who were born with Agent Orange-induced spina bifida.

The legislation I introduce today would increase the rate of monthly Survivors' and Dependents' Education Assistance, DEA, benefits from $680 to $985. DEA benefits are provided to the spouses and children of veterans who were killed, or profoundly wounded, in service. The increase I propose today would create parity between DEA benefits and veterans' educational assistance, Montgomery GI Bill, benefits. Such parity was recommended by a recent Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, program evaluation and is dictated by the common sense observation that college tuition is no less expensive for widows and orphans than it is for veterans.

Under this legislation, DEA-eligible survivors, like Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries, would receive an aggregate of $35,460 worth of education benefits--$985 monthly for a total of 36 months. Thus, both veterans and survivors would have the resources necessary to meet the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at four-year, public institutions of higher learning. As was stated by VA's Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, at a Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on June 28, 2001, VA ``believe[s] it is only fair that these benefits should be at the same level as those provided to veterans.'' VA estimates that a monthly benefit at that level will entice 90% of eligible persons to use the benefit.

This legislation would also put into effect a key policy recommendation made by a VA-contracted study examining the adequacy of survivors' Dependency and Indemnification Compensation, DIC, benefit. The 2001 study called for the DIC benefit--the basic rate of which is now set at $948 per month--to be increased by $250 per month during the 5-year period following the death of a veteran to further ease the transition of surviving spouses with dependent children. The contractor study based its recommendations on the reported income needs and expenses of DIC recipients; it found that spouses with children reported higher levels of unmet need than spouses without children-- even though spouses with dependent children already receive an additional $237 in monthly DIC benefits per child. In short, the contractor found that while widows with children are already afforded additional DIC benefits, they need more.

In July 2001, VA estimated that there were approximately 14,500 surviving spouses with dependent children. Reading the profiles of some of the young men and women who lost their lives in Iraq, I know that several spouses will, sadly, be added to that number. This provision of my bill is a small way to further recognize the needs of families based on an objective assessment of what those needs are.

Section four of this bill would codify a practice that VA routinely allows through a waiver process. Under current practice, when the remarried widow of a deceased veteran dies, her second husband must grant VA permission before VA will allow, under a waiver process, the widow to be buried in a national cemetery with her deceased veteran- husband. A woman, for example, who was married for 50 years to a World War II veteran and who remarries late in life after her first husband dies should not have to depend on a waiver process to ensure burial with her first husband. Remarried spouses whose second marriages end due to death or divorce have a statutory right to burial with their deceased veteran-spouse. The same statutory right should be afforded to remarried spouses who, though married at death, never lost their desire to be united with a prior spouse already at rest in a national cemetery.

Finally, my legislation would provide benefits to spina bifida children of veterans who served in or near the Korean DMZ between 1967 and 1969. Benefits would be provided on the same basis, and under the same rationale, as they are to children of Vietnam veterans who are born with spina bifida. In 1996, Congress authorized benefits for Vietnam children born with spina bifida based on evidence reported by the Institute of Medicine of an association between exposure to Agent Orange and the appearance of the birth defect spina bifida in a veteran's offspring. The same contaminant found in Agent Orange-- dioxin--was also used to clear brush in and near the Korean DMZ during the late 1960s. Indeed, veterans who served near the Korean DMZ during that time are already presumed by VA to have been exposed to herbicides, unless military records demonstrate otherwise, and they are, accordingly, already awarded compensation on a presumptive basis if they fall ill from conditions presumed by law to be presumptively service-connected for Vietnam veterans. VA, however, exercises no such latitude in addressing the needs of the children of Korean DMZ veterans born with spina bifida. It should--and this bill would direct VA to do so.

I first learned of this inequity from Mr. John Ruzalski, a resident of Hawley, PA. Mr. Ruzalski is a Korean DMZ veteran whose 27-year-old son suffers from spina bifida. I am grateful to Mr. Ruzalski for his service in Korea, and for bringing this matter to light, and am hopeful that the Congress can reward his vigilance on behalf of his son. Clearly, it makes no sense for VA to presume that Korean DMZ veterans should be treated like Vietnam veterans for purposes of compensating the veteran's service-related illnesses and yet treat their spina bifida children differently.

In summary, the provisions of this legislation will make a difference in the lives of those who fallen servicemembers loved even more than country--their families. I ask my colleagues for their support.

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

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S.1133, the proposed ``Veterans Programs Improvement Act of 2003.'' The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has submitted this proposed legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated April 25, 2003.

My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and comments--all Administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, together with the transmittal letter and a section-by-section analysis which accompanied it.

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation that would restate, revise and update the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, SSCRA.

The SSCRA, in summary, suspends some of the legal obligations incurred by military personnel prior to entry into the service so that they might give their full attention to military duty. As was stated by the Supreme Court in LeMaistre v. Leffers, 333 U.S. 1, 6, 1948, SSCRA is to be read ``with an eye friendly to those who dropped their

affairs to answer their country's call.'' With operations in Iraq now wrapping up, it is an appropriate time for a review of this World War II-vintage legislation to see how it might be modified to better address the needs of 21st Century servicemen and women.

I should mention at this point that I am aware that a bill to revise the SSCRA, H.R. 100, is currently pending in the House, and that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as S. 792. My legislation is similar to H.R. 100 and S. 792, but it contains modifications and additions to those bills as suggested by reservists and their families, the Department of Defense, and by other groups. It is my intention to work with Senator Miller to craft legislation that incorporates the best features of the two bills.

This legislation would rename SSCRA the ``Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act'' to reflect that the Armed Forces are made up now of more than just soldiers and sailors, and keep in place the core protections that have been features of SSCRA for decades: stays of civil proceedings during a person's period of military service; an interest rate cap of 6 percent on debts incurred before active duty; protection from eviction and termination of pre-service residential leases; and legal residency protection. But it would also add several new provisions to this core.

Currently, the Higher Education Act of 1965 prohibits the SSCRA's 6 percent interest cap from applying to Federally-insured student loans. This bill would remove that prohibition. It would also require institutions of higher education to permit students who are called to active duty to return and complete classes at no additional cost.

In addition, SSCRA now precludes evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers having a monthly rent $1200 or less. This $1200 ceiling was set in 1991; it has not been adjusted since. This legislation would raise the rent ceiling to $1950 or the amount of a servicemember's basic allowance for housing, whichever is higher. It would thereby take post-1991 inflation into account, and avoid the need for frequent amendments to the law since housing allowances are adjusted annually based on housing costs in the area where the servicemember is assigned.

When the SSCRA was originally enacted in 1940, automobiles were not commonly leased. That, of course, has changed; many people now choose leasing as a way to finance their personal transportation needs. This legislation would protect servicemembers who have leased cars--just as it does those who had chosen the more traditional form of auto financing--in two ways. First, it would prohibit lessors, like purchase financers, from repossessing personal property for nonpayment or breach without court action. Second, it would allow servicemembers called to active duty to terminate automobile leases just as they can real property leases.

This bill also takes steps to offer some protection to professionals and small business owners who are called to active duty. It would include the practice of law among the ``professional services'' for which professional liability insurance obligations could be suspended subject to mandatory reinstatement. It would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate other professional callings that would be subject to these protections. And it would protect the assets of small business owners during military service if the servicemember is personally liable for trade or business debts.

Since 1940, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act has provided important protections to the men and women who wear the uniform. But 60-plus years later, it is time for Congress to take a critical look at this law and revise it to reflect changes in our society since it was originally enacted. With the assistance of the Department of Defense, the National Guard Bureau, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the Small Business Administration, the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, most notably Mr. David Goetz, the Committee's Associate Counsel, has undertaken the painstaking review that has yielded this rather extensive bill. It is my intention to seek further comment and then guide this important reform legislation to enactment.

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