A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about a bill I will be introducing today, along with Senator Chris Dodd, a bill that has to do with children. It is an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about but one that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation.

What I am taking about is what we do, or what we can do, when a child develops a life-threatening or terminal illness. What I am talking about is we need to make sure we do everything in our power to make sick children as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible-- everything in our power to ease their suffering. What I am talking about is the pressing need for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are facing death as a result of serious illness; the need

to make palliative care available to any child who is seriously ill and who might possibly be facing death.

No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. That is why today, along with Senator Dodd and Congresswoman Pryce and Congressman Murtha, we are introducing a bill, the Compassionate Care for Children Act, 2003, in an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or sadness.

Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some children will die suddenly and unexpectedly, in a car accident, by drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered.

Others, though, thousands of children, will be diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses or disease that might eventually, over a period of time, take away their lives. Children with these kinds of illnesses are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries.

They might have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might die if the treatments for their diseases might not work. Others are too young to understand that reality.

One poor girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for her, and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies available to treat Liza's disease. But nothing seemed to work. At the age of 5, Liza began to ask her mother about what would come next, and whether she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance for a cure--had failed.

Once the medical treatments had failed, hospitals has little else to offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they were out of treatment options, that there was no cure, that she wasn't going to get better, have her life restored and her health restored, and that she wasn't going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them to do so.

Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist to tell her when death was near. This little 5-year-old girl asked her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet on the final night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the doctor call to tell me.''

Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter during the last 3 months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are sick.

God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so sick they are never going to get better, so sick there are no more treatments and no more cures, and so sick they know their children are going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and everything possible in their power to help their children and make them comfortable, pain-free, and happy in their remaining days.

We have an obligation to help those parents achieve those goals.

Children with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. Yet despite that knowledge, the fact is, current Federal law and regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these Federal laws and regulations get in the way of taking care of these children.

The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible death live more comfortably and live with dignity and would help them receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care we would expect for our own children.

Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does.

First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better informed.

Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. This research is critically important to improve the type of care dying children receive.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great deal'' of pain and suffering.

This does not have to happen. We can change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly.

In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has 6 months or less to live. The problem with this ``6-month rule'' is that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in 6 months or 6 years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. This very rigid 6-month predictability rule which denies care is very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that rule.

According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. So when a child is diagnosed with illness such as cancer or heart disease, he is much more likely to be cured than an adult.''

Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into consideration the special needs of children.

Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend their life, and also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. In other words, current law does not allow the assistance, the doctors to go in to try to provide typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time you are still trying to save the child's life.

That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a horrible choice, a choice that no parent should have.

That is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care, care that involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront death, care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her sickest hours, care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility.

Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. When a child is involved, this means a parent must agree to no longer provide curative treatment, treatment that could cure the child--that is wrong--in order for their child to receive care and support for the possible end of life.

This should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this position.

Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill.

That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for children. the demonstration program will allow children to receive curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also removes the 6-month rule so children can receive palliative care benefit at the time of diagnosis.

I take a moment to tell my colleagues about another girl, Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of wire and tubes, clinging to life.

Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives and church community at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her brothers doted on their baby sister.

Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with her family, Rachel Ann passed away.

This is truly a tragic story. Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much time together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a support system in place for this family.

The terminal illness of a child must be an incredibly difficult thing to confront for a parent and a family. No one wants to think about children dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But it is one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that our children receive. We should continue to support research and finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children suffer. But until those cures are found, and as long as children die from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support.

The bill we will introduce later today will be an important step in this direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do. I encourage my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. President, as I consulted the morning weather reports, the thought occurred to me that today's economic forecast sounds a lot like the weather forecast. There is good reason to believe dramatic change is on the way. Yet, unlike the weather, how dramatic the economic change will be and how prepared we will be for it is in our hands. While we can't do anything about the weather, we can do something about helping America's workers get back to work.

We have already taken action to lay the groundwork for our economic recovery. We have ensured the presence of more capital in our economy which will lead to the creation of more jobs for our people. We have also begun to deal with the changing face of our Nation's economy. Because the kinds of jobs that will be available in the days to come will be different from those that were highly valued just months ago, we need to ensure that those who are looking for jobs find them. To do that we must ensure they have the training they will need for these new positions. We must also bring workforce supply and demand together to ensure that our businesses have the skilled employees they need to compete in a more global economy.

Workforce development is a powerful economic development tool. In these challenging times, the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will give us an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our workers, and increase the strength of our businesses and communities.

Legislation I am introducing today, the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2003, along with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Murray, will build upon the success of the Workforce Investment Act while addressing its shortcomings.

In 1998 the Workforce Investment Act was enacted to create a streamlined job training and employment system that would be responsive to the needs of employers and workers. The system may be fairly new, but we've already learned a great deal about its strengths and weaknesses. These lessons reinforce what I learned as a small business owner in Wyoming: real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector; economic development and workforce development go hand in hand; rural areas face unique workforce development challenges; Washington cannot--and should not--determine state, local and individual workforce needs; and overly burdensome administrative requirements divert resources from serving customers.

Prior to coming to the Senate, my wife and I owned a small chain of shoe stores. We were not shoe salesmen, we were shoe fitters. There is a big difference. Shoe fitters listen to their customers and then meet their need for footwear with something comfortable to wear. Some people may be born salesmen, but they have to be trained to be shoe fitters. We had a series of courses we put our employees through. Few people are aware that slight changes can be made in a shoe to make it especially comfortable as well as useful and attractive. They aren't aware of the possibilities because they haven't been coming to see shoe fitters-- they've been dealing with salesmen.

We taught listening, needs questioning, and technical fitting. Any staff person could advance through our training and begin filling foot doctor's prescriptions. The value of the training was that it made our stores special. We made sure our customers received the help they needed--even though they didn't know to ask for it--because they didn't know it was available.

Along the way we got to see some very special people achieve. One young returning Vietnam vet became a store manager, then bought that store--and later--bought a second store from us. Now he owns his own building and is also in the motel business. Bill Schepeler of Miles City, MT has and is playing a role in building three communities. I also consider him to be one of my good friends. He went through a workforce training program that we had approved in conjunction with the federal government.

My wife has also served on several boards that dealt with training and jobs and is currently on the Advisory Committee On Apprenticeship of the Department of Labor. She and I know that real opportunity in America comes from the small business sector where the American dream can still happen.

This bipartisan legislation I am introducing today wil help keep the American dream alive for millions of American workers. It will provide workers with the training they need to find new or better jobs.

Our bill improves upon the existing one-stop career center delivery system to ensure that it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of employers and workers in the new economy and address the needs of hard-to-serve populations. The bill also better connects the job training system with the private sector and with post-secondary education and training, social services, and economic development systems. Doing so will prepare the 21st century workforce for career opportunities and skills in high-growing sectors. Our bill removes barriers in the laws that have discouraged business involvement in workforce training. As a result, job training and employment services will be more demand-driven and responsive to the needs of employers, both large and small.

One-stop career centers are the focal point of WIA's job training and employment system. However, distance can create a barrier to delivering job training and employment services in many rural and frontier areas, like Wyoming. A job seeker or employer in Dubois, WY has to travel 150 miles round trip to get to the nearest one-stop center in Lander. It isn't hard to understand the impact that traveling distances like that can have on a trainee or business owner. If you live in a big city-- there's probably a facility just down the road--or a short bus ride downtown. There is an answer to that problem--technology can effectively remove the barrier created by distance. This legislation will leverage technology to improve access to WIA services throughout each state, including rural areas.

Some states and localities have found creative ways to overcome the challenges imposed by current law. Wyoming has done a magnificent job with the resources they have been allotted, and I commend their ingenuity. With this legislation, we will give Wyoming and the other states and localities the tools they need to help the unemployed or underemployed.

I want to thank my colleagues on the HELP Committee for all their work on this bipartisan Workforce Amendment Act. I also want to thank the Department of Labor for their assistance. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to expeditiously address outstanding issues and enact this vital legislation. A demand-driven, flexible, and accountable system that works in all areas of the country in all economic times is what we can achieve through the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.

We can't do anything to change the path of Hurricane Isabel. However, we can do something to put our workers on the path to new and better jobs. In fact, this bill means more than just jobs--it means good, solid careers for the workers of this country.

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

Mr. President, I want to think you Len Roberts and the people of United Way for making this day possible. The tremendous board members, including Brian Gallagher and Dr. Johnnetta Cole. And Paul Thornell and Bridget Gavaghan, of the staff.

I also want to thank Senator Dole for working with me on this project. Because of her long history with the Red Cross, she understands the important of 2-1-1, and I am so pleased to be working with her to champion the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I know that she will be a tremendous help in getting this legislation passed into law.

Representatives Richard Burr and Anna Eshoo are leading this effort in the House and I appreciate their efforts.

I also want to thank you Major Dennis E. Fowler who was here this morning from Florida to share his perspective on the value of 2-1-1.

And of course, I have to mention George Clooney who is on the board of United Way and came to a press conference this morning to help publicize this legislation. I am always happy to thank people who take time away from K Street to help Main Street.

This is a piece of legislation whose time has come.

As you all know, I represent a State that experienced a horrible tragedy on September 11. The silver lining in that tragedy was the tremendous outgrowth of volunteerism. We saw thousands of individuals-- people from all over the country--who came to New York just to lend a hand.

But the biggest challenge the city experienced was coordinating those efforts. Making sure we knew exactly how many people were needed to heal the wounded, clean up debris at the site, donate blood, bring food and coffee to the firefighters and police officers who were working round the clock, and so much more.

The needs were great and the people of America rose to the challenge. But our infrastructure struggled to keep up.

As time wore on, the economic repercussions of the disaster became more and more apparent. More than 100,000 people lost their jobs. Close to 2,000 families applied for housing assistance because they couldn't pay their rent or mortgage. Ninety thousand people developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder or clinical depression within 8 weeks of the attacks. Another 34,000 people met the criteria for both diagnoses.

Again, our communities rose to the challenge. Philanthropic organizations like United Way, along with corporations, foundations, and community organizations raise more than $1 billion to help the victims.

But our government did not have the infrastructure to handle the outpouring of support. In a study of the aftermath of September 11, the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute found that as the dislocated workers struggled to obtain assistance. people ``found it difficult to connect with resources due to a social-services infrastructure that does not support a simple and deficient method for people to learn about and access services and for agencies to coordinate their activities.''

That's what 2-1-1 is all about. It provides a single, efficient, coordinated way for people who need help to connect with those who can provide it.

The Federal Communications Commission land the groundwork for a 2-1-1 number in 2000 when it directed the telephone number to be reserved for information and referral to social- and human-services agencies. The 2- 1-1 system opens the way to a user-friendly social-services network, by providing an easy-to-remember and universally available phone number that links individuals and families in need to the appropriate non- profit and government agencies.

Where 2-1-1 is now active, it has done just that. 2-1-1 is helping our youth to navigate through difficult situations like exiting a gang, assisting a suicidal friend, and rejecting illegal drugs.

2-1-1 was already operating in Connecticut during September 11 and it was critical in helping identify the whereabouts of victims, connecting frightened children with their parents, providing information on terrorist suspects, and linking ready volunteers with coordinated efforts and victims with necessary mental and physical health services. 2-1-1 provided locations of vigils and support groups, and information on bioterrorism.

I want those services to be available to New Yorkers who continue to need services in the recovery process. Some have mental health problems. Other are still out of work. Others need legal and financial advice. Whatever the need, 2-1-1 can help.

So I am thrilled to announce today that I am introducing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act. I hope that we soon reach a day when all Americans have the 4-1-1 on 2-1-1 so it can help them through life's toughest challenges. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the L-1 Visa Reform Act which affects intracompany transferees seeking entry to the United States. Congress created the L-1 visa to allow international companies to move executives, managers, and other key personnel within the company and into the U.S. temporarily. The L-1 is an important tool for our multi-national corporations, however, some companies are making an end-run around the visa process by bringing in professional workers on L-1 visas and then outsourcing those workers to a third party company. In other words, some firms are using the so-called ``L-1 loophole'' to become the international equivalent of temp agencies, or ``job shops.'' As a result, American workers are being displaced by foreign workers who are brought to the U.S. essentially for their labor. This must stop--my legislation targets the problem, closes the loophole, and protects U.S. jobs from inappropriate use of the L-1 visa.

The situation in question arises when a company with both foreign and U.S.-based operations obtains an L-1 visa to transfer a foreign employee who has ``specialized knowledge'' of the company's product or processes. The problem occurs only when an employee with specialized knowledge is placed offsite at the business location of a third party company. In this context, if the L-1 employee does not bring anything more than generic knowledge of the third party company's operations, the foreign worker is acting more like an H-1B professional than a true intracompany transferee. Outsourcing an L-1 worker in this way has resulted in American workers being displaced at the third party company. In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that American workers aren't losing their jobs to cheap foreign labor by those circumventing protections already in law.

Several weeks ago I held a hearing on L-1 visa concerns in the Immigration Subcommittee. We heard from a full-range of witnesses--from a displaced worker and labor unions to small and large U.S. companies to business immigration experts. The hearing clearly demonstrated a problem exists, and the testimony of our witnesses directed attention to Congress' intent in creating the L-1 visa. The bill I am introducing today clarifies Congress' intent and restricts the inappropriate use of the L-1 visa. The bill does so without forcing unnecessary restrictions on the visa that would only result in adverse effects on legitimate L-1 users.

The L-1 Visa Reform Act prevents companies from using the L-1 visa when an H-1B visa with its worker protections is appropriate. The legislation requires that any employee with specialized knowledge who is located offsite must, first, be controlled and supervised by the petitioning company and, second, be provided in connection with an exchange of products or services between the petitioning company and the third-party company. This will stop the practice of a consulting company bringing in foreign workers to send over to a manufacturer when the consulting company does nothing more than cut the foreign worker's paycheck once a month. Instead, the bill requires the third-party company to have a pre-existing business relationship with the petitioning company that is more than just supplying workers.

In addition, the legislation requires companies to employ a worker for at least one year before sending the employee over on an L-1 intra- company

transfer. One year is a reasonable amount of time to require an employee to have attained the specialized knowledge of the company's products, services or processes to qualify for the visa. The bill also mandates the Department of Homeland Security to maintain statistics differentiating between L-1 transferees who are managers and executives and those who are specialized knowledge employees. This will provide better accountability and fraud prevention when L-1 petitions are reviewed and approved.

We need the best people in the world to come to the United States, to bring their skills and innovative ideas, and to support our business enterprises. The L-1 visa is an important tool to achieve these purposes. But we must ensure that American workers are not displaced by foreign workers, particularly when we have safeguards in place albeit a loophole in law. The L-1 Visa Reform Act will close that loophole for the benefit of U.S. workers and for U.S. businesses who use the visa as it is intended.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is Citizenship Day. On this day in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed. In 1952, Congress passed a law designating Citizenship Day on this day with the intent of recognizing those who had become American citizens during the preceding year.

In the ceremony where an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen of this country, where he or she becomes a new American, he or she swears an oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Last week, on September 11, I noted that the oath of allegiance is currently a matter of mere Federal regulation and not a matter of law. I said that Congress ought to enshrine the oath in law.

Today, on behalf of Mr. Burns, Mr. Sessions, and 30 Members of the Senate, I rise to introduce legislation to do precisely that--to make the current oath of allegiance the law of the land. Doing so will give the oath of allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being an American--the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and our national motto. All these symbols and statements have been specifically approved by Congress and are now a matter of law. The oath of allegiance ought to be treated with the same dignity.

The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services--or BCIS--an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, was recently planning to change the oath of allegiance that immigrants take to become a citizen of this Nation. While those changes seem now to be on hold, it seems inappropriate to me that the BCIS, or any other Government agency, no matter how well intentioned, should have the power to alter the oath without congressional approval.

In the first 5 months of this fiscal year, 166,968 immigrants took the oath and were naturalized as new citizens of this country.

The oath assumed its present form in the 1950s and was first adopted in Federal regulations in 1929. But some of the language dates all the way back to 1790.

Yesterday, I attended a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. They were proud to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They were proud to become Americans. This is the oath they took to become U.S. citizens--the oath which will become law if the bill I will introduce today should pass and be signed by the President.

I quote:

I--and the citizen states his or her name--hereby declare,

on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure

all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,

state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been

a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the

Constitution and laws of the United States of America against

all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true

faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on

behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I

will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the

United States when required by the law; that I will perform

work of national importance under civilian direction when

required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help

me God.

That is the oath of allegiance. That is quite an oath. It has strength. It has clarity. It sounds as if it might have been written by some rowdy patriots in Philadelphia or Williamsburg.

Yet, surprisingly, Congress has never voted on the content of this oath. We have left it to Federal regulators. It is time to protect it.

This is a straightforward bill that simply codifies the oath of allegiance as it presently stands. The bill I introduce today has, as I mentioned, already attracted 30 cosponsors, including the distinguished Senator from North Carolina who is presiding today.

I hope more Senators will join us in protecting this key statement on what it means to become an American.