Protecting American Democracy Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Protecting American Democracy Act of 2003, legislation that is vital to ensuring that the voting systems used in our Federal elections are as secure as possible while also ensuring that each and every voter in our Nation has an equal opportunity to verify his or her vote before that vote is cast and permanently recorded. At its core, this legislation will ensure that every vote is properly counted, ensuring the integrity of each vote, which is at the heart of our democracy.

In recent months, there has been discussion about the increasing use of electronic voting systems such as direct recording electronic systems (DREs), the first completely computerized voting systems. Computerized voting systems can have many advantages. As the Congressional Research

Service has reported, they are arguably the most user-friendly and versatile of any current voting system. Among many features, such voting machines can be easily programmed to display ballots in different languages and can be made fully accessible for persons with disabilities, including the visually impaired. They can also prevent overvotes and spoilage of ballots due to extraneous marks since no document ballot is involved. In addition, fully computerized systems have the ability to notify voters of undervotes. Presently, no other kind of voting system possesses so many features. For this reason, it is expected that within the next two years, with funding authorized under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (``HAVA''), state and local jurisdictions across the country will begin purchasing fully computerized systems.

One of the disadvantages of these electronic voting systems, however, is that they do not give voters an opportunity to verify their votes-- to confirm that the voting machinery is registering the vote that the voter intended to cast--before the vote is cast and permanently recorded. In addition, electronic voting systems raise other concerns because of the ability of the software in the voting system to be compromised, or worse, maliciously attacked, by someone who may want to alter the voting results. Indeed, a number of recent studies, including the July 2001 study by Caltech/MIT, the July 2003 study by Johns Hopkins and Rice universities, the September 2003 study by the Science Applications International Corporation, requested by the Governor of Maryland, and the two November 2003 studies conducted by Compuware Corporation and InfoSENTRY, requested by the Ohio Secretary of State, pointed to significant and disturbing security risks in electronic voting systems and related administrative procedures and processes.

That is why in addition to ensuring that voters have an opportunity to verify their vote, it is vital that we improve the security of voting system technology, and that means not only the kind of software that is used but also how, for example, that software is designed, stored, disseminated, updated, field tested, and used in an actual election. This is a developing consensus among computer security experts that not only is the security of electronic voting systems wholly inadequate, but that the security policies and procedures that State and local election officials, voting system vendors, and others use are non-existent, inadequate, or, if they exist, are not followed, which is the same as having no policy at all.

Our Nation is the greatest Nation on earth and it is the leading democracy in the world. Central to that democracy is ability of Americans to have confidence in the voting system used to register and record their votes. This is a fundamental standard that must be met. I have concerns, however, that our Nation is falling short of that standard.

That is why I am today introducing the ``Protecting American Democracy Act of 2003,'' which amends by adding a voter verification requirement for voting systems to give each voter an opportunity to verify his or her vote at the time the vote is cast. Voters will be given an opportunity to correct any error made by the voting system before the permanent voting record is preserved.

While requiring that all election jurisdictions give voters the ability to verify their votes, this legislation also gives States and local jurisdictions the flexibility to employ the most appropriate, accurate, and secure voter verification technologies, which may include voter-verifiable paper ballots, votemeters, modular voting architecture, and/or encrypted votes, for their State or jurisdiction in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Any voter verification method used must ensure that voters with disabilities and other affected voters have the ability to cast their vote in private, and language minorities must have equal access in verifying their vote. This is important if we are to ensure that all Americans--including the more than 20 million voters who are visually impaired, the more than 40 million Americans who lack basic literacy skills, and millions of language minorities--will be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

To address critical security issues, the ``Protecting American Democracy Act of 2003'' also amends HAVA by adding a security requirement for voting systems to ensure that voting systems are as secure as possible. Specifically, voting systems must adhere to the security requirements for Federal computer systems as required under current law or, alternatively, more stringent requirements adopted by the Election Assistance Commission. Currently no such requirement exists. I believe that, at minimum, the systems used by the people of the United States to exercise their constitutional right to vote, the hallmark of our democracy, should be at least as secure as the computer systems used by the Federal Government.

The security requirements must also provide that no voting system shall contain any wireless device, which reduces the risk that hackers will be able to attack any electronic voting system. In addition, all software and hardware used in any electronic voting system must be certified by laboratories accredited by the Commission as meeting all security requirements.

The Act also requires the Election Assistance Commission to report to Congress within 6 months of enactment regarding a proposed security review and certification process for all voting systems. Within 3 months of enactment, the Government Accounting Office, unless the Commission has already completed the following report, must issue a report to Congress on the operational and management systems that should be employed to safeguard the security of voting systems, together with a schedule for how quickly each such measure should be implemented.

Lastly, immediately upon enactment, the National Institute of Standards and technology (NIST) must provide security consultation services to State and local jurisdiction. Two million dollars in Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006 are authorized to be appropriated to assist NIST in providing these security consultation services.

I cannot think of a more significant risk to our democracy than for Americans to lack complete confidence in the voting systems used to cast and count their votes in Federal elections. For all those who believe that in a democracy, there is no more important task than assuring the sanctity of votes, this should be an easy step to take to assure it. For this reason, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill that seeks to begin a dialogue on one of the most important yet neglected aspects of our health care system--health care quality. this is an enormous issue that affects every single one of us who has ever needed medical care, and it affects all taxpayers because quality care has such potential to avoid waste and save millions of dollars in health care costs. I have raised many of these ideas as amendments in other contexts, such as the Medicare debate on S. 1, and the debate over S. 720, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2003. I intend to continue working with my colleagues on improving these ideas and proposing additional concepts. But with this bill today, I seek to put forward a package of ideas, provoke conversation, and present this as a first step in making quality a focus of my health care efforts next year. My goal with these efforts is to both improve quality and outcomes, and reduce costs by encouraging care that is more effective.

There is no reason why we cannot achieve this. We have the most advanced medical system in human history--the finest medical institutions, the newest treatments, the best trained health care professionals. But in spite of the best intentions of clinicians and patients, our health care system is plagued with underuse, overuse, and misuse. currently, only about 50 percent of care that is known to be effective is provided, and the care given is supported by solid scientific evidence, and the pace of dissemination of new evidence is painfully slow. It may take up to 17 years for treatments found to be effective to become common practice.

Much of the overuse or misuse of health services stems from the fragmentation of our system. In a recent study in Santa Barbara, CA, 20 percent of lab tests and x-rays were conducted solely because previous results were unavailable. One in seven hospitalizations occurs because information is unavailable, and a shocking percentage of the time, physicians do not find patient information that had previously been recorded in a paper-based medical record.

Despite all of our Nation's medical advances, health quality is becoming even more endangered in some respects. Nursing care which is often shown to be a decisive factor for hospital patient outcomes, its in grave shortage, and a majority of U.S. physicians surveyed by the Commonwealth Fund perceive their ability to provide quality care as having worsened over the last 5 years.

Additionally, even as the quality of health care we purchase lags, our spending on inadequate and wasteful care is spiraling out of control. Premiums increased 13 percent last year, and health care costs are increasing at nearly 10 times the rate of inflation. To make matters worse, the public health system is straining to meet the challenges of bioterrorism or emerging infections, the number of uninsured Americans is rising, clinicians are leaving practice, and the older adult population is set to double by 2040.

The reason is not because doctors aren't trying hard enough, or hospitals are at fault. That we're able to get good health care at all is testament to the genius and heroism of doctors and nurses who deliver care, despite all the obstacles, despite every effort of the system to hinder them.

But what our medical system requires of providers is a little like asking pilots to routinely land planes without any information from the control tower. The best of them can do it--they could land a plane with one arm around their backs missing key information and confirmations, but why force them to do it? Why deny them critical information when it could be easily available? There is no plausible reason for denying needed information, especially when life and death are at stake.

That's unfortunately exactly what our health care system says to doctors, nurses, and hospitals. Physicians for example spend four years in medical school, and then several years more in their residency training, cramming medical information into their heads. Then we expect them to look at a patient taking four different drugs, with a heart condition, and immediately remember any drug-drug interactions that could occur. We ask them to do it without looking up any reference materials. We ask them to do it in the few minutes that they have with each patient given the ever-shorter visits, and ever-increasing patient and paperwork load. Moreover, in their free time, they are expected to keep up with all the new journal articles and learn about every new drug.

Yet hand-held computers can now allow the doctor to pull up up-to- date information immediately, right at the bedside, if he or she has any question. And NIH spends billions of dollars in research to generate that information. Shouldn't that investment reap results for the patient as quickly as possible? This bill seeks to provide the direction that would support such technology and make it widely available to physicians.

Right now, doctors, nurses, and hospitals are holding the health care system up, preventing utter collapse by sheer, heroic, force of will. Instead of the clinicians supporting the system, we should build a system that supports clinicians instead.

The premise of this legislation is that information, in the hands of the right people at the right time, drives quality and value. We need to empower patients and health care providers to make the right choices. And to do that, health care decisionsmakers--providers, payers, and patients--need to have access to the right information, where and when it is needed, securely and privately.

This legislation seeks to: 1. Generate information about health quality through increased research, increased public reporting along key quality measures, and standardization of those measures to assure comparability and usability of reported information; 2. Ensure that payers, providers and patients get information in a usable form so they can make effective decisions; and 3. Reduce barriers to the development of an IT infrastructure that is so critical to achieving those first 2 goals.

Eighty percent of the care delivered today is not backed by sound clinical

research. That is why we need to do more research, and see if the care we provide today has sound justification in science. But even where we know what to do, we don't always do it because the information is insufficiently disseminated and utilized. Studies have shown some procedures being performed even when they have not met accepted criteria for appropriateness: In one study, of all the non-emergent, noncancerous hysterectomies performed, only 30 percent had been properly worked up and met the full medical criteria for necessity. In another study, about one-fourth of coronary angiographies and upper gastrointestinal endoscopies did not meet standards of medical appropriateness.

On the flip side, in situations where the benefits of an intervention are clear, many patients do not receive the indicated care: Very few hospitalized patients at-risk for pneumococcal pneumonia who had not been previously vaccinated end up being vaccinated during their hospital stay. Routine peak flow measurements are conducted in only 28 percent of pediatric patients with asthma. And only one-half of diabetics receive an annual eye exam.

We know what good health care means in these areas, but we don't practice it, in part because that information may not be readily available, and regardless, there is no incentive for quality. We are suggesting--track the outcomes, share that information with patients, providers, and insurers, and ultimately, pay for performance.

This bill will help us become better purchasers of care, and help us take the first steps toward aligning the incentives so that higher quality is rewarded. I ask unanimous consent that the attached article from last week's New York Times be printed in the Record showing how our current reimbursement system is gravely misaligned. Under the current system, higher quality can be penalized, while worse care can ironically be more profitable.

Today, by introducing these ideas for the purpose of seeking feedback from my colleagues and experts in the field, I am taking the first step toward improving our health care system for everyone and saving money. I invite interested colleagues to join me in partnership on this important venture and look forward to taking strong, positive action next year to improve health quality for all Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, the National Highway Safety Act of 2003. It would be our intention in the course of the deliberations next year on the reauthorization or, as we call it, the successive piece of legislation to TEA-21, that this bill, which we introduce today, would be incorporated as an amendment.

As the Congress prepares to consider legislation next year to enact a new 6-year surface transportation law to succeed TEA-21, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, and in the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public. Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective step that can be taken to save the their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step.

I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee that has now completed its markup of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures, such as how to build safer roads, how to do use new technologies to improve safety. But, statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable, the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device. I have, through my career in the Senate--I say with modesty--been associated with, and indeed I think in the forefront of, trying to move forward on seatbelt legislation. I will not belabor what this humble Senator has done working with others through the years, but we are very proud today that America has about a 79 percent use rate of seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents.

Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill, or are we going to move forward? Senator Clinton and I think we should move forward with this somewhat new approach. I will address the technical aspects as we go along.

We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body, and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up?

Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of a seatbelt causes more serious loss of life and injury and, to some extent, crashes. The statistics show that with the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the driver can maintain, as best he can control of the vehicle in those fatal microseconds, often fatal, perhaps the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by the use of a safety belt--simply said.

Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to the wallet, out of your pocket. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save you your life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Maybe it is a hidden cost in the budgets of the towns and the communities and the States, but there is definitely a cost. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer those types of injuries are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-working taxpayers; in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up.

This also is rather interesting and fascinating. When an accident happens, regrettably, on our roads and highways across this great Nation, we try to refrain from rubbernecking. Nevertheless, chances are that we take a glance. More often than not, the accident with the combined slowdown of those passing the accident causes significant congestion for some considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the response team longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured person, to give the initial treatment, and then to carefully transport that individual, if necessary, to a medical facility. That takes time. That road is backed up.

That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple as that.

The legislation Senator Clinton and I are introducing today will take an important step forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law, or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90 percent seat belt use rate--not the Warner-Clinton bill or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which Senator Clinton and I draw for concepts of certain portions. The States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts.

In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta states:

President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt

usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease

highway fatalities and injuries.

That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say:

The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is

through the passage of a primary safety belt law.

I have had this debate with Governors, former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a primary safety belt law is a tough piece of State legislation to pass solely on its own. Frankly, it needs the impetus of Uncle Sam, the impetus of the Congress of the United States to move that process in the States forward, so the local politicians can shake their fist saying, it is Washington that has done it again--more regulation, more direction--you know the arguments. But I think quietly in the hearts of those State legislatures is the thought that we will improve safety in my State. We will improve the chance of survivability on the roads in my State. So that is why we are here today. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

As provided in our legislation, the Warner-Clinton bill, States can increase seatbelt use either by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law--everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States.

The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States--those that have the primary law are sometimes at 90, or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatbelt law are down sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts.

On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10 to 15 percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt

laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law.

Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely, the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State.

Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that, more often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is too late.

So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11 percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts.

Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used.

Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: age 2, that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the ways.

Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative.

My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading non-combat cause of death for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high-risk age category, 18 to 35.

Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the fatalities last year, and said that represents in deaths approximately the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in the Armed Forces.

I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator.

The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent--90 percent.

I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman, Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the committee.

With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety problems. Regrettably, I report to you that the recent markup of the committee on the proposed successor to the TEA-21 legislation, which we will take up next year, does provide more funding to help build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition for the President's initiative. He has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and that is why, I say respectfully to Chairman Inhofe and others on that committee, we need a provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the purpose of this legislation.

It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many instances and the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. It is as simple as that.

Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only part of the solution.

In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the highway insurance industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol.

The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level.

The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on today's highways.

The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Regrettably, this recommendation is not included in the bill that will come before my committee next year as a consequence of the markup seeking reauthorization of TEA-21.

The proposed reauthorization bill also does not include the current program, the Safety Belt Incentive Grant program, that we even had in the previous highway bill, of which I was primarily one of the authors. Not only are we not going forward, but in a sense we are stepping backwards. I just cannot understand how we can, as a body, not observe our responsibility to do what we can to provide the necessary incentive to the States to take these steps.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in reintroducing the ``Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003'', a bill to reform and improve Indian Reservation Road, IRR, program.

In the past two Congresses the Committee on Indian Affairs has held hearings on the problems with the IRR program and this bill provides much-needed clarifications to better meet the transportation needs in Native communities.

Involving as it does transportation and related issues, this bill includes an initiative I proposed last session to support commercial vehicle driving training programs at tribal colleges and universities.

Although reservation roads comprise just 2.63 percent of the Federal highway system, less than 1 percent of Federal aid has been allocated to Indian roads. This bill would allow the already-authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries.

As with any community, Indian reservations need efficient and effective road financing and construction to develop healthy economies and raise the standard of living.

It is no secret that when entrepreneurs, Indian or non-Indian, calculate whether to invest in a community they first look to see if the basic building blocks exist within the community: roads, highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities.

Unfortunately, despite recent successes some Indian tribes have had with gaming, energy and natural resource development, most Indian tribes still suffer from poor infrastructure that thwarts investment and economic growth.

Building on the successes of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, this bill authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Administration to create a 12-tribe pilot program to contract directly for roads funding.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in re-introducing legislation to assist Indian tribes to fight the scourge of alcohol, drug and associated mental health problems in their communities.

Native Americans continue to be plagued by chronic alcohol and drug addictions which destroy their bodies and souls and inevitably require mental health treatment as well.

There are a good number of Federal agencies involved in treating these problems and, through no fault of their own, agency efforts are often un-coordinated and ineffective as a result.

Relying on models that are proven winners, the ``Native American Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Consolidation Act of 2003'' authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to string together these disparate programs and services and bring them together in one comprehensive and coordinated package.

In addition to achieving economies of scale in these Federal services, the bill would also encourage the use of automated clinical information systems and bring to bear state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools

The two main themes of this bill, better use of resources combined with technological innovations have proven successful in other areas like Indian job training.

Just this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson launched a new effort aimed at combating chronic health problems in minority communities.

Substance abuse and diabetes are included in Secretary Thompson's effort and this bill would go a long way in assisting Federal and tribal governments in that battle.

The mechanics of this bill are also consistent with the broad contours of the President's Management Agenda, increasing the effectiveness of Federal services without increasing the budget.

For these reasons, I am hopeful the bill will be well received by the Administration and the tribes so that it can be considered speedily in the weeks ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I did last session, I am again pleased to introduce the ``Indian Tribal Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge, values and sensitivity to the management of our Federal lands.

I want to emphasize that this initiative is a starting point for a broader discussion about whether Federal law sufficiently protects sacred Indian places that are located on Federal lands.

Americans react viscerally when lands and sites held sacred are threatened. Whether the site in question is the Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana; the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France; or religious and ceremonial sites held dear by Native people.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.''

A series of hearings held by the Committee on Indian Affairs over the past two years revealed that the AIRFA policy remains aspirational and the goals of that Act have not been realized.

The clashes between economic and cultural interests will also sharpen as our nation's needs for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases.

In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978.

The legislation I am re-introducing today will build on these precedents by setting up a Demonstration Project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies.

Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2003. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam.

The legislation I am introducing today is based on language which I previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.

The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States Destroyer, USS Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men.

While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the USS Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam.

The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate.

At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored?

This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names.

As a veteran of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the USS Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the ``Federal Acknowledgment Process Reform Act of 2003''.

Since 1997 I have offered changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process, FAP, which is the process by which Indian groups are ``recognized'' by the United States as tribes.

Recognition of a tribal group as a tribe brings with it the privileges, immunities and rights accorded to Indian tribes.

In recent years, the FAP has been described as ``broken'', ``too lengthy'', ``too costly'', ``without integrity'', ``not transparent'' and ``inconsistently applied'' to name but a few.

For petitioners that have waited literally generations for a final answer on their application, the process is too lengthy.

For petitioners of modest means driven to seek the financial support of ``a backer'', the process is too costly.

For interested parties who feel compelled to file Freedom of Information Act requests to secure information, the process is not transparent.

And for the uninitiated and those not familiar with the governing legal regime, the regulations do appear to be inconsistently applied.

The FAP has not been with us forever. In 1978, the Department of Interior established regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR Part 83, to ``establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian groups exist as tribes.''

Since this administrative procedure was set up in 1978, over 270 groups have petitioned under the regulations, with 18 groups being awarded acknowledgment as a tribe, and 19 groups having been denied.

This means that nearly 230 groups are still waiting to hear on their petitions.

For those who think the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, BAR, is a serial grantor of recognition: just last week the Golden Hill Paugussett group in Connecticut was preliminarily denied acknowledgment.

The delays petitioners face have led to understandable frustration: the Indian Affairs Committee has received testimony from groups where the individuals that originally filed the petition have passed away, and the struggle is carried on by their children, and even grandchildren.

Some petitioners have become so tired of waiting that they have sued the Secretary of Interior and some courts have forced the BAR to produce decisions by dates-certain.

Unfortunately this ``queue jumping'' has created adverse incentives, as more groups file lawsuits.

The kinks in the process have also caused understandable frustration on the part of other, non-Indian groups. These frustrations have led to voluminous Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests, and even lawsuits, as these groups have tried to secure information or seek a better understanding of the regulations.

As you might expect, once the lawsuits get started, paper starts churning. The BAR staff testified to the Indian Affairs Committee that their anthropologists, genealogists and historians spend 40 percent of their time just making photo-copies in response to FOIA requests.

The bill I am introducing today will resolve many of the problems I have described. It will do this first by introducing discipline into the process. Under this bill would-be-petitioners must include enough information in their ``letter of intent'' so that the BAR and other interested parties have a better idea of the context of the group. Obtaining more information will better assist the Secretary of Interior in providing notices to the group and interested parties; and the bill requires that such notices go out within 90 days, insuring timeliness.

Secondly, this bill will provide more resources to petitioners and interested parties, based on the needs of the group or party, something on which all observers of the process seem to be in agreement.

Third, this bill will provide more resources to the Department of Interior, another point on which there seems to be wide agreement.

I do not propose to merely throw more money at this problem. Instead, the bill establishes a research pilot project that will draw upon independent research institutions and consultation with the Smithsonian to expand the research capacity of the BAR.

The bill will also provide a resource to the Assistant Secretary that is sorely needed: an independent research and advisory board that can be called on by the Assistant Secretary to act as a peer reviewer and a second source upon which the Assistant Secretary can base his determination on a petition.

This board will consist of certified professionals and will be available to the Assistant Secretary: 1. at his discretion, if the Assistant Secretary and BAR disagree regarding whether particular criterion have been met in a petition; and 2. to provide outside peer

review and a second opinion on a proposed final determination.

The board will give the Assistant Secretary greater assurance in the soundness of his determination, and will provide a more solid foundation for any later appellate review.

Finally, this bill will provide the certainty of a statutory basis for the acknowledgment criteria that have been used by the BAR since 1978.

There appears to be widespread acceptance of the substantive validity of the criteria, but questions have been raised regarding whether those criteria should be codified. This bill answers that question definitively.

This bill addresses the criticisms of the FAP by increasing the transparency, consistency and integrity of the process, and at the same time removes some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have caused the process to be too costly and time-consuming.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush emphasized the importance of local and charitable initiatives that help define the character of the many communities that make up the mosaic of our country. I have come to the floor today to discuss a community tradition that is unique to many of Alaska's remote villages and which should be recognized and supported by the Federal Government.

Subsistance whaling is vital to the survival of several Alaska Native communities. In many of our remote villages, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on over many millennia. As part of that tradition, it is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with the hunt.

After the hunt, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuk, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain donates a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive the harsh winter.

While the International Whaling Commission, IWC, has banned commercial whaling, it has specifically recognized the cultural significance of whaling to the Alaska Native community and has allowed them to continue the seasonal hunt. The IWC recognizes that the traditional whale hunt is not carried on for financial gain. Although the hunt generates no financial gain to the whaling captain, the captain incurs real expenses.

Since the whaling captain is not engaged in a business, he is not permitted to deduct the costs he incurs from his taxes. In order to maintain the traditional hunt and to offset some of the costs incurred by the Captain, I am today introducing legislation that would allow the captain to claim a charitable deduction of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service.

I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. Moreover, since there is no commercial market for whale meat because of the international whaling bank, there is no way to set the value of such a charitable contribution.

This is a very modest proposal and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, I speak today on behalf of Alaska's most vulnerable individuals, our children, the disabled, and the elderly poor. Since its enactment in 1965, the Medicaid program has helped States provide low-income and disabled individuals with access to vital health care services. In 1997, Congress allowed States to take on certain health-related responsibilities for children. The Denali Kid Care program, a Medicaid expansion, has been very successful in providing health services for Alaskan children. Unfortunately, under current law many Alaskans who rely on this program could lose some or all of their Medicaid coverage. This is because Alaska's Federal Medical Assistance percentage, FMAP, adjustment, a correction to the Medicaid formula due to the high cost of health care in Alaska, will expire within the next 2 fiscal years. An FMAP correction is necessary for Alaska because this ``one-size-fits-all'' formula does not account for variations in cost-of-living, and does not consider Alaska's higher federally mandated poverty level.

First of all, the FMAP formula was developed in 1946, 13 years before Alaska was admitted to the Union. This archaic formula is used to calculate the Federal share of Medicaid costs for each State. The calculations are based on the per capita income of individual States relative to the national per capita income. In this way, States with higher per capita incomes end up paying a higher percentage of their Medicaid costs. This formula appears to work well for States near the national norms for most economic indicators. It most certainly does not work in the State of Alaska, however, where these economic indicators appear more frequently as statistical exceptions and outlyers.

The problem is fairly simple: it just costs more to do business in Alaska, and this includes health care. A national per capita income threshold is not a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of living in that area. The cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees in Alaska suggests that it costs 25 percent more to live in Alaska than in the lower 48, and Federal employee salaries are adjusted accordingly. A dollar simply does not buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48.

This is especially true for health care costs. Estimates suggest that, on average, it costs up to 71 percent more to deliver health care services in Alaska. American Hospital Association data shows that Alaska has the highest average expense per hospital admission of any State in the Nation. But let's talk real numbers again. If you were to be admitted to a hospital in Oregon, on average the cost would be $6,649.00; in Alaska the same average hospital stay costs almost double, $10,859.00. There are also higher costs associated with limited road access and necessary air ambulance service for rural and isolated communities, but the Medicaid FMAP formula does not consider any of these additional costs.

In addition to the higher cost of services in Alaska, the Federal Government sets the poverty level 20 percent higher in Alaska than in any of the lower 48 States. This means 1 out of every 5 Alaskans is eligible for Medicaid. The problem is that this is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate because the FMAP formula, again, does not change to reflect this additional requirement. The higher demand for services that results from the higher poverty level dilutes our resources. The Medicaid FMAP formula was developed before Alaska became a State and does NOT provide the funds to cover all of those who are eligible.

However, in 1997 and again in 2000, Congress recognized that the Medicaid FMAP formula was unfair for Alaska and enacted an adjustment to the formula. Due in part to this more equitable funding and a careful re-allocation of resources, Alaska now: has the lowest age- adjusted death rate for breast cancer in the Nation; has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Nation; and has one of the lowest percentages of low birth weight babies in the Nation.

These are encouraging statistics, but more can and must be done to improve access to quality health care. All disabled and low-income Americans, including Alaskans, have been assured access to quality medical care. Alaska has proven it can deliver this quality care, but only with the necessary adjustment to the FMAP formula that recognizes the reality of Alaska's needs.

This issue is timely because the Congress has the opportunity to allow the State of Alaska to plan for the future. Planning is the essence of good management, and when it comes to health care, we must allow States to plan for future needs. In short, the Federal Government must remember its commitment to Alaskans, and allow my State a benefit that all other states have, assurance that money for vital Medicaid services will not just dry up and disappear.

Alaskans do not seek charity, we seek equity. The Congress has supported this request twice before, and I ask for an additional extension to honor Federal commitments to my state. The legislation that I am introducing today will permanently adjust the Medicaid formula for Alaska. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this vital legislation that will preserve my State's ability to provide health insurance to the most vulnerable Alaskans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to establish the Denali Transportation System.

This bill in intended to help create in the same beneficial transportation system in Alaska as exists for every other State in the Union. It is patterned after a similar effort adopted years ago for the Appalachian region, which has demonstrated beyond any doubt that transportation investment is wise investment.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to fund the costs of construction of the Denali Transportation System, at a level of $450 million per year from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2009. As new roads are constructed, they will become part of the National Highway System.

As my colleagues are aware, Alaska's ability to develop a strong economy for the benefit of the State and the nation is deeply impaired by the lack of transportation. This affects all aspects of life in the 49th State, from the delivery of fuel and essential services to individuals and families in our many remote villages, to our ability to develop Alaska's abundance of valuable natural resources. Only our major cities have modern roadways, and many of those remain isolated.

No State, or its citizens, can prosper without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such systems have been in place since before

the American Revolution, and have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since. In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In this day, and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it.

The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for those changes. Adequate transportation connections to, and within, America's only Arctic State are imperative.

As we debate a Federal budget during a time when the economy is struggling, let us not forget that the key to long-term prosperity is wise investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely. We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used as they should.

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

Mr. President, last week, the Bush administration--in what has become its normal pattern--ignored the pleas of thousands of hardworking Americans. It lifted the steel tariffs it had promised the U.S. steel industry and imposed on foreign imports back in March of 2002.

Despite its earlier pledge to stand by America's steelworkers, the White House, in typical fashion, decided to turn its back on our highest valued workers and most vulnerable retirees. In a fit of pique and hard-hearted hubris, the White House decided to lift U.S. tariffs on foreign steel imports 15

months ahead of time, instead of letting the tariffs stay in place until March 2005, as is permitted by U.S. law.

Why? Why would the White House betray America's steel industry--the backbone of America's industrial base--particularly during this time of war? Of national emergency? No. Because the President feared retaliation from America's trading partners, he quivered at the threat that they would retaliate against U.S. exports if he did not lift the 201 tariffs. He cowered in the face of exactly those nations whose steel exports to the United States have driven 42 U.S. steel companies to their knees and into bankruptcy. His resolve collapsed in the face of retaliatory threats from America's most virulent competitors, whose illegal trade against the United States has already cost nearly 50,000 steelworkers their jobs.

America's foreign trade opponents gambled that this President lacked the resolve to stand up to them and to the WTO. Do you know? They were right. They were sadly correct.

But this President, George W. Bush, did not need to cave like a ``weak willy'' in the face of belligerent foreign bullies. Instead, he could have invoked Article XXI of the GATT, a viable trade tool that has been legitimately and successfully employed by the United States in the past to exempt itself from the GATT, now the WTO, in a time of war or national emergency. The President on July 31, 2003, formally proclaimed our Nation to be in a continued state of emergency. As a result of the President's own misguided and ill-advised actions, we remain engaged militarily in Iraq.

On July 31, 2003, President Bush formally declared that, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, he was ``continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to Iraq.'' We also continue to face an ongoing war against terrorism, both here at home and abroad.

So, President Bush had--and has--ample authority to invoke a provision of GATT 1994, negotiated by the United States and available to all WTO Members, that would permit him to exempt protections for the U.S. steel industry from retaliation by foreign countries.

But this President has so far lacked the foresight or the fortitude to take that step. Confronted with real threats of economic retaliation by determined competitors, the President folds like a house of cards astride the San Andreas fault.

That is why, today, I am introducing a bill that will do what the President refused to do. It will reinstate the 201 relief and reimpose the 201 tariffs against foreign steel imports. Under my bill, the 201 tariffs will be put back in place to stop foreign import surges, just as they did before the President so ill-advisedly lifted the tariffs last Thursday. And the tariffs will remain in place through March 5, 2005.

This administration should not have been bullied into abandoning the U.S. steel industry. Our steel industry is key to the national economic security of our Nation. Without steel, we cannot guarantee America's national security. Without steel, we could not have rebuilt after September 11. And I am not the only one who thinks that steel is integral to America's economic and national security. Just a few days before that fateful September day, on August 26, 2001, President Bush told America's steelworkers: ``If you're worried about the security of the country and you become over reliant upon foreign sources of steel, it can easily affect the capacity of our military to be well supplied. Steel is an important jobs issue; it is also an important national security issue.''

With an annual take deficit of almost $500 billion, Americans have a right to expect that international trade rules with work for them; not against them. They also have a right to know that the United States can respond as it must to the type of trade crises that have been suffered by America's steel industry for years.

There was absolutely no reason to lift the steel 201 tariffs. They are fully consistent with both U.S. law and our international agreements--regardless of the view of the WTO. The purpose of 201 relief is to give the domestic industry time to adjust to import competition. Our valiant steel industry is doing just that by pursuing unprecedented restructuring and new investment. Since the 201 tariffs were imposed, flat-rolled steel producers alone have invested more than $3 billion to enhance their productivity.

Critics of the 201 relief have been proved wrong on every significant fact concerning that relief. They said that once the tariffs were imposed, steel prices would go through the roof. Yet, prices have risen only modestly, and much less than abroad. The critics claimed that U.S. steel companies would do nothing to improve their competitiveness. But our Nation is witnessing the most dramatic restructuring in the industry's history. The critics also claimed that the tariffs would be bad for the U.S. economy, but the non-partisan U.S. International Trade Commission, ITC, recently found that the potential costs are minuscule--only about 2 percent of what Americans spend each month at McDonald's--and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the value we gain by restoring a critical U.S. industry to long-term competitiveness.

Other nations' actions in this Section 201 dispute have been truly disgraceful. The European Union originally threatened to retaliate against the United States immediately upon the President's application of the safeguard measures in March 2002. In the end, it hesitated. But its threat was sufficient to extort from the administration nearly unlimited exclusions from the tariffs to benefit foreign producers.

Acquiescing to this type of bullying jeopardizes the future of the U.S. steel industry, and it undermines the integrity of, and support for, the entire international trading system. Americans cannot be expected to support a system that works against them, rather than for them.

By lifting the tariffs, the administration is allowing Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and other nations, once again, to flood the U.S. market with imports. The Bush administration could have stood up for America's steelworkers like those at Weirton, WV, and Wheeling- Pittsburgh Steel in West Virginia, and demanded that other countries respect the legitimate rights of the United States in the world trading system. But this administration chose to back down, to lose face, to sit back and watch, once more, while thousands of additional U.S. steel jobs are destroyed by wave after wave of foreign imports.

The administration does not seem to care if the U.S. steel industry is destroyed at a time of war and in the midst of a national emergency. President Bush did not even care enough to personally inform the U.S. steel industry, its workers, and their families of his decision to lift the tariffs. No!! Instead, he sent a trade negotiator, Mr. Zoellick, to do his dirty work. Ambassador Zoellick had the audacity to tell us that the tariffs are ``no longer necessary.'' No longer necessary. And why did he say that they are no longer necessary? They are no longer necessary because, he said, ``these safeguard measures have achieved their purpose.''

The only purpose that I can see in this decision to shut the tariff program down is to succumb to threats and demands from abroad. The only effect will be the loss of more steel manufacturing jobs here at home.

On October 27, 2000, Mr. Dick Cheney--do you know him? He is now Vice President of the United States--just a few days before the elections he came to Weirton, WV, to campaign for the Bush-Cheney ticket. During that visit, Mr. Cheney forcefully pledged to help America's steelworkers. He said, ``We will never lie to you. If our trading partners violate our trading laws, we will respond swiftly and firmly.''

Promise made, promise broken. Unfortunately, like so many commitments this administration has made, its pledge to help America's steel industry got off to a headline-grabbing start, but has now been discarded, out of the glare of the campaign spotlight.

So now, only 3 years after Mr. Cheney's campaign-season vow of honesty to America's steelworkers, this White House has taken an axe to the 201 tariffs and betrayed the trust of thousands of American families whose paychecks depend on the U.S. steel industry.

Mr. President, the Bush White House has absolutely failed the working families across this country. This White House has traded the best interests of the American people for the big special interests of corporate campaign contributors. It is no surprise that the Bush Administration would turn its back on steelworkers.

When the Bush-Cheney ticket needed West Virginia's votes in 2000, it pledged to help our steel industry. At first, it appeared as though the administration would follow through on that promise. The White House applied the steel tariffs, for which West Virginia was thankful and for which I and other Senators congratulated, commended and thanked the administration. But then the President exempted import after import from those tariffs. Now the President has eliminated the tariffs completely.

The Bush White House may have forgotten the promise made to the steel industry in West Virginia, but thousands of West Virginians and other steelworkers across the Nation will not forget. The recognize a fair- weather friend when they seen one.