21st Century Federal Pell Grant Plus Act

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator Coleman to introduce the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act also called the ``Ryan Haight Act'', a bill which is vital to protect the safety of Americans who choose to purchase their prescription drugs legally over the Internet.

This legislation is necessary because of a growing problem of illegal prescription drug diversion and abuse of prescription drugs. Coupled with the ease of access to the Internet, it has led to an environment where illegitimate pharmacy websites can bypass traditional regulations and established safeguards for the sale of prescription drugs. Internet websites that allow consumers to obtain prescription drugs without the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship pose an immediate threat to public health and safety.

To address this problem, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act makes several critical steps to ensure safety and to assist regulatory authorities in shutting down ``rogue'' Internet pharmacies.

First, this bill establishes disclosure standards for Internet pharmacies.

Second, this bill prohibits the dispensing or sale of a prescription drug based solely on communications via the Internet such as the completion of an online medical questionnaire.

Third, it allows a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of this law.

Under this bill, for a domestic website to sell prescription drugs legally, the website would have to display identifying information such as the names, addresses, and medical licensing information for pharmacists and physicians associated with the website.

In addition, if a person wants to use the Internet to purchase their prescription drugs he or she will not be prohibited from doing so under this bill but, in order to do so, must already have a prescription for the drug that is valid in the United States prior to making the Internet purchase.

Reliance on the Internet for public health purposes and the expansion of telemedicine, particularly in rural areas, make it essential that there be at the very least a minimum standard for what qualifies as an acceptable medical relationship between patients and their physicians.

According to the American Medical Association, a health care practitioner who offers a prescription for a patient he or she has never seen before, based solely on an online questionnaire, generally does not meet the appropriate medical standard of care.

Let me illustrate the situation facing our country today. If a physician's office prescribed and dispensed prescription drugs the same way Internet pharmacies currently can and do, it would look something like this: A physician opens a physical office, asks a patient to fill out a medical history questionnaire in the lobby and give his or her credit card information to the office manager. There is no nurse, and therefore no one to take the patients' height, weight, blood pressure, verify his or her medical history, and so forth and no one to answer the patient's questions regarding their health.

The questionnaire is then slipped through a hole in the window; the office manager takes it to the physician, or person acting as the physician, who then writes the prescription and hands it to the pharmacist, or person acting as the pharmacist, in the next room. Once the patient signs his credit card, he is on his way out the door, drugs in hand.

No examination is performed, no questions asked, and no verification or clarification of the answers provided on the medical history questionnaire.

This illustration is not an exaggeration. It occurs every day all across the United States. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates

that there are around 500 identifiable rogue pharmacy websites operating on the Internet.

According to the Federation of State Medical Boards, approximately 29 states and the District of Columbia either have laws or medical board initiatives addressing Internet medical practice. Of the other 21 States, 13 have medical or osteopathic medical boards that have taken disciplinary action against a physician for prescribing medication online.

Many States have already enacted laws defining acceptable practices for qualifying medical relationships between doctors and patients and this bill would not affect any existing State laws.

For example, California law was changed in 2000 to say:

No person or entity may prescribe, dispense, or furnish, or

cause to be prescribed, dispensed, or furnished dangerous

drugs or dangerous devices [defined as any drug or device

unsafe for self-use] on the Internet for delivery to any

person in this state, without a good faith prior examination

and medical indication . . .

I believe California's law is a perfect example of why this legislation is needed. The law only applies to persons living in California. As we all know, however, the Internet is not bound by State or even country borders.

This legislation makes a critical step forward by providing additional authority for State Attorneys General to file an injunction in Federal court to shut down an Internet site operating in another State that violates the provisions in the bill.

Under current law, in order to close down an Internet website selling prescription drugs prosecutors must take enforcement actions in every State where the Internet pharmacy operates, requiring a tremendous amount of resources in an environment where the location of the website is difficult, if not impossible, to determine or keep track of.

This bill will allow a State Attorney General to bring a civil action in a Federal district court to enjoin a pharmacy operation and to enforce compliance with the provisions of the law in every jurisdiction where the pharmacy is operating.

While this legislation pertains to domestic Internet pharmacies, the practice of international pharmacies selling low-cost drugs to U.S. consumers who have valid prescriptions from their doctors deserves to be discussed and debated on the Senate floor. It is my hope that the Senate will act this year on prescription drug importation legislation.

In closing, I want to share with you the story of Ryan T. Haight of La Mesa, CA in whose memory this bill is named.

Ryan was an 18-year old honor student from La Mesa, CA, when he died in his home on February 12, 2001. His parents found a bottle of Vicodin in his room with a label from an out-of-state pharmacy.

It turns out that Ryan had been ordering addictive drugs online and paying with a debit card his parents gave him to buy baseball cards on eBay.

Without a physical exam or his parents' consent, Ryan had been obtaining controlled substances, some from an Internet site in Oklahoma. It only took a few months before Ryan's life was ended by an overdose on a cocktail of painkillers.

Ryan's story and others like it force us to ask why anyone in the U.S. would be able to access such highly addictive and dangerous drugs over the Internet with such ease?

Why was there no physician or pharmacist on the other end of this teenager's computer verifying his age, his medical history and that there was a valid prescription?

That is why I support this legislation. It makes sensible requirements of Internet pharmacy websites that will not impact access to convenient, oftentimes cost-saving drugs.

With simple disclosure requirements for Internet sites such as names, addresses and medical or pharmacy licensing information, patients will be better off and state medical and pharmacy boards can ensure that pharmacists and doctors are properly licensed.

Lastly, this bill will give State Attorneys General the authority they need to shut down rogue Internet pharmacies operating in other States. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Increasing Notice of Foreign Outsourcing Act, or the INFO Act. This legislation will help safeguard Americans' most important and sensitive personal information when it is sent abroad for processing to countries that may have lax security and privacy standards.

The bill will ensure that American companies notify consumers of a business's outsourcing practices. It will require American companies to certify the adequacy of their outsourcing protections. And it will require American companies to hold their foreign business partners accountable for protecting Americans' data.

In order to protect the information of Americans that is now vulnerable abroad, this bill calls for the following key safeguards:

First, the bill requires American health and financial companies to notify consumers when sending their information abroad, and to certify the safety of the overseas processing. We drafted provisions carefully to minimize the burden on businesses, so they will expand on privacy disclosures that companies already make under Federal law.

Second, American companies processing health or financial data must include clauses in contracts with their foreign partners to allow audits of their foreign information processors and to enforce American privacy standards.

Third, the bill creates a system to inform American companies and Federal regulators of any security breaches involving American health or financial information at facilities operated outside the United States.

And fourth, the bill gives Americans the right to have workers at foreign call centers disclose where they are calling from.

The bill also gives Federal agencies the power to enforce these provisions. It is important to emphasize that this bill is drafted to minimize the burdens on businesses, by expanding on existing privacy data and security laws.

While many are concerned about how outsourcing abroad hurts American workers, outsourcing also poses risks to the security and privacy of American consumers' personal data. The recent wave of international outsourcing means that we are flooding the entire world with our most sensitive information.

Once sent abroad, the information is at risk because our Federal laws do not apply to foreign companies operating overseas. Another reason is because many foreign countries have far weaker security laws than our own. For instance, India still has no laws to protect personal and private data. And still another reason is because it is extremely difficult for Americans to use foreign courts to sue foreign companies that misuse American data.

These factors leave the most intimate details of the lives of uncountable Americans vulnerable to lax security and to malicious identity thieves.

And there is even more at stake. Information outsourcing poses a direct risk to national security. We are painfully aware that some people want to steal the identity of individual Americans in order to evade our homeland defenses and harm us all.

International information outsourcing has skyrocketed in recent years. Consider the following:

Tax returns for about 200,000 Americans were prepared in India this year. To put this number in context, India workers processed only about 1,000 U.S. tax returns 2 years ago. Tax returns have Americans' names, Social Security numbers, income, employers, addresses, and other details.

The American Association of Medical Transcription estimates that 10 percent of all medical transcription of doctors' notes is being done abroad.

An executive from Trans Union, one of the major credit agencies in the United States, told The San Francisco Chronicle that:

A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes

is going to go to India at some point.

If anyone doubts the risk that international outsourcing poses to Americans, consider these incidents:

Recently, a low-paid transcriber in Pakistan was working as a subcontractor to the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. That foreign worker threatened to post confidential patient information on the Internet unless the university coaxed her boss into paying some of her bills.

Three weeks later, a strikingly similar incident occurred with a worker in Bangalore, India.

In another incident, in Noida, India, an employee working at a call center used an American's credit card information to buy electronics equipment from Sony.

Also in India, there is a burgeoning black market in personal identity information. According to one report, stolen names, addresses, phone numbers, the bank a person has an account with, and even bank account numbers are sold on the streets for mere pennies.

These are just a few incidents. No one knows how many other times workers have done similar things. And that is a big part of the problem. It is not merely that Americans' identities are vulnerable when sent abroad. The problem is that American companies obscure how much outsourcing they do, and when they are doing it.

For example, according to the San Jose Mercury News, a worker at a call center dealing with State benefits refused to identify his location. The supervisor, when she picked up the call, refused to say anything more than that she worked for Citicorp.

In essence, the problem of obscurity is so bad that we can list only a few incidents reported by the media. How many security breaches have taken place? Have consumers been informed when their information is abroad and at risk? How much money has this cost consumers? We don't know.

And so far, American regulatory agencies have been unable to say despite their oversight of these industries. And American companies have stayed mum. We need to break the silence.

The fact is, our Government is simply not doing enough to protect consumers. Earlier this month I received a letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., who is the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. He heads one of the agencies that regulates U.S. financial institutions and banks.

Mr. Hawke wrote to me that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC, does not directly regulate foreign contractors that work for U.S. banks. Specifically, he wrote:

[T]he OCC focuses its supervisory reviews regarding foreign

servicing relationships on whether the serviced banks have

adequate procedures in place. . . .

That means the OCC is focusing on the American companies, not the foreign ones.

I also learned from the OCC that it already suggests certain safeguards for American banks to use when they hire foreign information processors. The OCC asks U.S. banks to use contract provisions to make sure that foreign companies use secure methods to process data, and to let the U.S. companies audit the foreign companies.

But the OCC only suggests that companies adopt these safeguards. The legislation we are introducing today would take safeguards like the OCC's a step further, and make them mandatory.

Now is the time to act. We know that there are criminal syndicates, such as in Nigeria, that have fraudulently obtained bank information to steal untold fortunes. We can hardly imagine the damage such organizations can do with a vast new source of sensitive financial data from international information outsourcing.

In short, this bill accomplishes four goals crucial to protecting Americans' sensitive data sent abroad. It requires companies to give notice that they send consumers' sensitive data abroad. It ensures that U.S. companies can audit their foreign partners, and impose U.S. privacy standards on them. It establishes a system to ensure that foreign and U.S. companies will report security breaches to the U.S. Government. And it allows American consumers to demand to know where foreign call centers are located.

This bill helps to protect outsourced information while minimizing burdens on American businesses. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Peace Corps Volunteers Health, Safety, and Security Act of 2004 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to introduce a bill

designed to help protect consumers--especially children--from the dangers of tobacco. Simply, our bill would finally give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to effectively regulate the manufacture and sale of tobacco products.

I say finally, because there are some tobacco proponents who would have you believe that the Master Settlement Agreement, which was signed in 1998 by 46 States, resolved the issue of youth tobacco use by imposing advertising restrictions.

I say finally, because my colleagues--first Senator McCain, then Senator Frist, then Senator Gregg, and then Senator Kennedy and I--have been seeking FDA regulation of tobacco products since the mid to late 1990's.

And, I say finally, because the bill that we are introducing today is the product of long and hard discussions and negotiations that I have had with Senator Kennedy and public interest groups and industry. Our bill has the support of Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Our bill has the support of Philip Morris. Our bill has the support of the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the American Cancer Association. It is a bill that I am proud of, that is worthy of the Senate's consideration, and that will provide the FDA--finally-- with strong and effective authority over the regulation of tobacco products.

I realize full well that tobacco users and non-users, alike, recognize and understand that tobacco products are hazardous to their health. We all know that smoking is not a healthy habit. But, that's an obvious point in comparison to the fact that right now, many consumers, including smokers, are surprised to learn that no Federal agency has the authority to require tobacco companies to list the ingredients that are in their products--things like trace amounts of arsenic, formaldehyde, and ammonia. And, no Federal agency has the authority to inspect tobacco manufacturers--how the cigarette and smokeless tobacco products are made, whether the manufacturers' machines and equipment are clean, etc.

While simply listing the ingredients, toxic as they may be, might not seem like much to some, think of it this way: Current law makes sure we know what's in products designed to help people quit smoking, like ``the patch'' or Nicorette gum, but not the very products that get people addicted in the first place--the cigarettes. That is absolutely absurd!

Think about this: Right now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires Philip Morris/Altria to print the ingredients in its Kraft ``Macaroni and Cheese,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--a product that contributes to the deaths of more than 440,000 people a year.

Right now, the FDA requires Philip Morris-owned Nabisco to print the ingredients contained in ``Oreo Cookies'' and ``Ritz Crackers,'' but not the ingredients in its cigarettes--even though cigarettes cause one-third of all cancer deaths and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. It is unfathomable to me that we would require the listing of ingredients on these products, yet not require the listing of ingredients for one of the leading causes of death and disease.

Right now, the FDA requires the printed ingredients for chewing gum, lipstick, bottled water, and ice cream, but not for cigarettes--a product that causes 20% of all heart disease deaths and is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Think about this: If a company wants to market a food product as ``fat-free'' or ``reduced-fat'' or ``lite,'' that company is required to meet certain standards regarding the number of calories or the amount of fat grams in that product. Yet, cigarette companies can call a cigarette a ``light'' or ``mild'' and not reveal a thing about the amount of tar or nicotine or arsenic in that supposedly ``light'' cigarette.

Not having access to all the information about this deadly product just makes no sense, and it is something that needs to change. By introducing this bill, we are finally saying that we are not going to let tobacco manufacturers have free reign over their markets and consumers any more.

Today, we are taking a step toward making sure the public gets adequate information about whether to continue to smoke or even to start smoking in the first place. With this bill, we are not just saying ``buyer beware.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies be honest.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies stop marketing to innocent children.'' We are saying ``tobacco companies tell consumers about what they are really buying.''

The legislation that Senator Kennedy and I are introducing would do just that.

One of the most dramatic changes our bill makes is that tobacco products will now have to be approved before they reach consumer hands. It just makes sense that tobacco products should not be able to imply that they may be safer or less harmful to consumers because they use descriptors such as ``light'' or ``mild'' or ``low'' to characterize the level of a substance in a product. The National Cancer Institute has found that many smokers mistakenly believe that ``low tar'' and ``light'' cigarettes cause fewer health problems than other cigarettes. Our bill would require specific approval by the FDA to use those words, so that consumers could be informed.

For the first time ever, all new tobacco products entering the market would have to be approved by the FDA. Obviously, we already know that smoking is a health risk. But, what we don't know about is the harm caused by or what adverse health effects are created by the other ingredients in tobacco products or by how the tobacco is burned. There are tobacco products on the market that are not conventional cigarettes. They have carbon filters running down the center of them. They are sophisticated products that burn tobacco differently, that affect the body differently, and that may cause people to smoke them differently.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in an October article of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, ``the only proven method to reduce tobacco-related cancer risk is to stop smoking.'' Yet, often times, people cannot quit. It is very difficult to quit ingesting an addictive product. People are addicted to the nicotine in the tobacco product and are just simply unable to quit using it. So, tobacco companies have responded by developing and marketing tobacco products that purport to be ``reduced-risk'' or ``safer.''

Take, for example, a person who smokes Marlboro cigarettes--just plain Marlboro cigarettes, the ones in the red package. Let's say that person would like to quit smoking, has tried to quit smoking a number of times, but just hasn't been successful. So instead of quitting outright, that person figures they will switch the type of cigarette they smoke to a cigarette that has the implied claim of being ``safer''--like a ``light'' cigarette or a ``mild'' cigarette or a ``low tar'' cigarette. Those cigarettes have not been found to be any safer? In fact, just the opposite has been discovered.

In a 2001 National Cancer Institute publication, they wrote the following:

The tobacco companies set out to develop cigarette designs

that markedly lowered the tar and nicotine yield results as

measured by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) testing

method. Yet, these cigarettes can be manipulated by the

smoker to increase the intake of tar and nicotine. The use of

these ``decreased risk'' cigarettes have not significantly

decreased the disease risk. In fact, the use of these

cigarettes may be partly responsible for the increase in lung

cancer for long-term smokers who have switched to the low-

tar/low-nicotine brands. Finally, switching to these

cigarettes may provide smokers with a false sense of reduced

risk, when the actual amount of tar and nicotine consumed may

be the same as, or more than, the previously used higher

yield brand.

So the products that tobacco companies develop and market as being ``safer'' are not safer. Rather than people quitting smoking entirely, they are often misled into thinking that the ``light'' or ``mild'' cigarettes that they switch to are better for them. In addition, people may begin to start smoking because they think some of these products aren't so bad for them--that the products have been made safer or better for them somehow and are okay to smoke.

Tobacco companies are able to make these implied health claims about their products because they are not regulated. Consumers have no choice but to trust the tobacco companies to reveal the ingredients and marketing claims about their products. That is just absurd to me. These are all things that should be examined, reviewed, and commented on by the Food and Drug

Administration to determine whether it is appropriate for these products to be marketed as ``reduced-risk'' products, so the public knows what they are choosing to consume.

Tobacco advertising is in magazines and on billboards along the highway. Tobacco advertising is in convenience stores, along the aisles and at the checkout counter right beside the candy where children are likely to see it. Tobacco advertising is at sporting events, part of promotional items, where consumers can ``buy 1 get 1 free.'' Tobacco advertising is on the Internet and in the daily delivery of mail.

Our bill would make changes regarding tobacco advertising. It would give the FDA authority to restrict tobacco industry marketing-- consistent with the First Amendment--that targets our children. Our bill would require advertisements to be in black and white text only and would define adult publication in terms of readership.

An issue that is related to advertising and marketing of tobacco products has to do with the flavored tobacco products, which clearly target our children. We have probably all seen the flavored cigarettes--flavors like strawberry, chocolate, and wild rum. The scent of strawberry filters through the unopened pack of cigarettes. And guess what, the cigarettes smell like candy. A recent New York Times article described the scent of chocolate flavored cigarettes as if ``someone had lifted the lid on a Whitman Sampler.''

I can't speak for every parent, but I know my 8 grandchildren like candy, and they like the smell of chocolate, and they would be curious to try something that smells or tastes like candy. Cigarettes shouldn't be flavored and marketed in such a way to attract children and to encourage children to smoke. Our bill bans the use of flavors such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, coffee and other flavorings that would attract children to the product.

Despite the fact that 40 million Americans use tobacco products, many of them do not know what is inside the cigarette or the tobacco product they ingest. They do not know the ingredients or the constituents, like tar or nicotine, that are in the products they use. Consumers do not know what additives are included in the product. Additives like ammonia or urea, both of which may make the tobacco product more addictive because they increase the delivery of nicotine. Tobacco companies do not disclose the specific ingredients in their products because they don't have to. Tobacco products are unregulated.

Our legislation would give consumers more information about what's in tobacco products. Specifically, the bill would provide the FDA with the ability to publish the ingredients of tobacco products.

It would require a listing of all ingredients, substances, and compounds added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, paper, or filter.

It would require a description of the content, delivery, and form of nicotine in each tobacco product.

It would require information on the health, behavioral, or physiologic effects of the tobacco products.

I think it is equally important that I mention what our bill does not do. Here are some of the areas where authority is not conferred to FDA: Our bill does not allow FDA to ban tobacco products or to eliminate nicotine from a tobacco product. The bill ensures that FDA will not have the power to use its ``performance standard'' authority to ban cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or any other category of tobacco products, or to reduce their nicotine yields to zero.

Our bill does not allow FDA to establish a minimum smoking age higher than 18. The bill explicitly forbids FDA from establishing a minimum age higher than 18 years of age to purchase tobacco products.

Our bill treats all tobacco retailers equally. Our bill specifically provides that FDA can't prohibit the sale of tobacco products in any particular category of retail outlet. Our bill forbids FDA from creating a more permissive set of advertising rules for adult-only establishments. This provision protects retailers and convenience store owners.

Finally, I would like to make a comment about the tobacco farmers. There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for a buyout for our Nation's tobacco farmers. My colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Dole, have been working tirelessly to craft a buyout bill for tobacco farmers. They need a buyout--and the Congress should give them one. The Senate needs to pass the buyout, but the buyout needs to be passed along with this FDA bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues from the tobacco-growing states to make this happen.

The bill that Senator Kennedy and I introduce today gives the FDA the authority to regulate a product that has gone unregulated for far too long--a product that for the past century has not revealed its ingredients to the consumer--a product whose manufacturing facilities are not inspected or accountable for following good manufacturing practices--a product that is never reviewed or approved before reaching the hands of 40 million consumers, many of whom are just children. Congress needs to put an end to this. Congress should put an end to the marketing of tobacco products to our children. Congress should put an end to the ability of tobacco companies to make claims, whether they are implied claims or direct claims, about their products. Congress should put an end to tobacco companies putting any ingredient they want into their products without disclosing it to the consumer. It is time Congress give the FDA authority to it needs to fix these problems.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2004, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement.

It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $6.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, nearly $7 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The General Accounting Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume.

In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability.

The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service.

As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms.

To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.''

The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ.

One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for the past four years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses.

As Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today is the culmination of everything the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses over the past eight months.

First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service-affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns have the same access to postal services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at rates charged by the Postal Service.

The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to an inflation indicator selected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45-day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required.

The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The

Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands.

The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required.

The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, who place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process.

Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the Federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), Federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently.

According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago.

The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years.

The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid.

Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. Some have raised concerns that the Postal Service has set rates so that mailers get a discount greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. While this may have occurred in a handful of instances, those mailers are still covering their attributable costs, as well as making a healthy contribution to overhead. The language in our bill sets a policy that the Postal Service shall not create new discounts greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. The only exception is in those cases where the Postal Regulatory Commission believes those rates are necessary.

The bill has also, for the first time, explicitly created the authority for the Postal Service to enter into negotiated service agreements with individual customers. This will allow the Postal Service to create agreements with customers to increase its revenue. I would point out that these agreements must cover all attributable costs, and will likely result in greater contribution to overhead. In addition, our bill requires that other similarly situated mailers will be able to enter into such agreements with the Postal Service.

Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds would mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford.

The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation.

The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now.

Our bill has the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. I am also very pleased to add Senators Ted Stevens, George Voinovich and John Sununu as originated cosponsors of this bill.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who just last week passed a postal reform bill out of his committee by a vote of 40-0.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with a letter sent to me from David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office, addressing the need for comprehensive postal reform.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, and Allen, and I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Some 50 plus years ago, I was a high school drop-out. I left school at the age of 17 to enlist in the Navy to serve this country in World War II. In the military, I earned the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate. And, it was in this role that I earned my first bit of technical education.

In return for my service, I was lucky enough to earn a GI Bill that helped me go to college at Washington & Lee University where I earned a degree in engineering. Subsequently, I joined the Marines and earned a second GI Bill that allowed me to attend the University of Virginia where I earned my law degree.

Without the GI bill, I certainly might not have earned the education that I was fortunate enough to receive, and I certainly would not be standing here today in the United States Senate. That is why I feel so very strongly that we must support education in this country. Today's generation of students should have at least the same opportunity to earn their education that I had, if not more.

We are fortunate in America that we have several important Federal programs to help make education more affordable for today's generation. Whether it is the GI Bill, the Americorp stipend, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, or any number of other Federal education programs, many Americans today who wish to obtain higher education have access to a variety of educational programs. I support strengthening these programs to increase access to higher education.

Of all the educational grant programs, the Pell Grant program is the largest source of grant aid to help students pay for the costs associated with higher education. Eligibility for Pell Grants is based on financial need, and this year alone, Pell Grants helped 5.3 million undergraduate students attain higher education.

Now, I am a strong supporter of the Pell Grant program. The $13.1 billion

that is being spent by the Federal Government on Pell Grants in fiscal year 2004 gives students access to higher education that otherwise might not have such access. But, I also recognize that the Pell Grant program was created in 1972 when the world was entirely different.

Our world today is much more dangerous than it was back then, and much more dangerous than when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and the Korean War.

Today, while we're sleeping, people in other parts of the world are contriving of every possible way to take our business, our economy, our security, and our freedoms away from us. September 11, 2001, should remind us of this.

Once, great oceans protected this Nation. But now, with the advent of the Internet and other modern technologies, the world is more connected than ever, and America is more vulnerable than ever in a lot of ways. Computer hackers all over the world try on a daily basis to hack into government computers. If successful, this could wreak havoc. Furthermore, each day, for whatever reason, people create computer viruses, and even the smallest virus can cost our economy billions of dollars.

Simply put, in today's day and age, our country faces new challenges like never before. I ask--are we prepared to meet these challenges?

Unfortunately, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough American graduates with certain majors to meet our new challenges. In engineering, math, computer sciences, hard sciences, and certain foreign languages--America is coming up short.

The statistics are alarming: the Third International Math and Science Study reports that U.S. 12th graders scored in only the 7th percentile in math worldwide, and only the 3rd percentile in science. This is near the bottom among major industrialized nations. The National Science Foundation reports that the fraction of U.S. Bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining for nearly 2 decades when compared to the rest of the world. While nearly two-thirds of Bachelor degrees in China and Singapore are science or engineering, they account for only about 17 percent in the United States. In fact, we currently rank 61st out of the 63 countries surveyed. Similarly, the National Science Board reports that the fraction of foreign born scientists and engineers in the U.S. workforce rose to an all time high by 2000. Amazingly, 38 percent of all people working in the United States with doctorate degrees in science or engineering are now foreign born.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: the American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Despite these statistics, up to now, this country has been able to meet its new challenges by importing brain power from foreign countries. We are fortunate to have so many smart minds from other countries willing to come to the United States to fill critical science and engineering positions. However, the need for home-grown talent is becoming more and more apparent.

First, international competition for this foreign brain power has become intense. As the National Science Board notes, ``Governments throughout the world recognize that a high-skill S&E workforce is essential for economic strength. Countries beyond the United States have been taking action to . . . attract foreign students and workers, and raise the attractiveness to their own citizenry of staying home or returning from abroad to serve growing national economies and research enterprises.'' This increased global competition for science and engineering workers ``comes at a time when demand for their skills is projected to rise significantly--both in the United States and throughout the global economy.''

Without action on our part, though, America will lose out in the competition for these technically talented workers. According to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America.

Increased global competition is not the only reason, though, that we have to promote a home-grown S&E workforce in America. In the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks.

The National Science Board put it best when they said, ``The ready availability of outstanding science and engineering talent from other countries is no longer assured, as international competition for the science and engineering workforce grows. Threats to world peace and domestic security create additional constraints on employment of foreign nationals in the United States.''

I think the message is clear: Our S&E workforce is in crisis. If we do not act to encourage more American citizens to enter the high shortage areas in engineering, math, and science, then America may lose its historical advantage as the world's innovator.

The consequences of this trend are also significant from a national security perspective. The defense-related research that goes into giving our men and women in the Armed Forces the best technology and equipment requires the special skills of engineers, scientists and computer scientists. Our military has always recognized these facts, and historically has been a tremendous supporter of science and engineering on a broad scale, from applied research to the most pure and esoteric of pursuits.

Let me quote some numbers which make clear what a huge investment our defense community makes in science and engineering: According to the National Science Foundation, the Defense Department is by far the largest single supporter of science and technology in the Federal Government, accounting for about half of the total research dollars spent; the proportion of defense funding for University research in critical disciplines is very significant. For example, 90 percent of basic astronautical research is defense-funded. And, as you all must realize, University research is vastly important for training subsequent generations of high-quality researchers; and in terms of technical manpower, defense-related scientists and engineers make up nearly 46 percent of the total Federal workforce. And, this includes 28 percent of all physical scientists, 48 percent of computer scientists and mathematicians, and 67 percent of all engineers.

For well over a century these investments have given us advantages in technological fields that have provided our men and women of our Armed Forces the most advanced and powerful tools in existence, from submarines and airplanes to unmanned vehicles and the Internet. These technologies not only give our military an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield, they also save many lives.

Yet, alarmingly, it is in the precise disciplines that produce these technologies and equipment where we see some of the greatest potential shortages in our science and engineering workforce. Numerous studies show that the number of domestic students in these critical fields has been falling steadily for years. And, without major investments to encourage more Americans to enter these critical fields, America is going to lose its status as the world's innovator and be placed in the precarious situation of having to rely on foreign countries to sell us the best equipment and the best technology for our troops. That is why it is paramount for America, from within, to produce the home-grown technical talent it needs.

The consequences of inaction are enormous. And, while America's challenge is substantial, it is not insurmountable. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help.

Under current law, the $13.1 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, 2 people

from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national security, homeland security, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every 2 years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded through a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have over $13 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a commonsense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, and Allen, and I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Some 50 plus years ago, I was a high school drop-out. I left school at the age of 17 to enlist in the Navy to serve this country in World War II. In the military, I earned the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate. And, it was in this role that I earned my first bit of technical education.

In return for my service, I was lucky enough to earn a GI Bill that helped me go to college at Washington & Lee University where I earned a degree in engineering. Subsequently, I joined the Marines and earned a second GI Bill that allowed me to attend the University of Virginia where I earned my law degree.

Without the GI bill, I certainly might not have earned the education that I was fortunate enough to receive, and I certainly would not be standing here today in the United States Senate. That is why I feel so very strongly that we must support education in this country. Today's generation of students should have at least the same opportunity to earn their education that I had, if not more.

We are fortunate in America that we have several important Federal programs to help make education more affordable for today's generation. Whether it is the GI Bill, the Americorp stipend, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, or any number of other Federal education programs, many Americans today who wish to obtain higher education have access to a variety of educational programs. I support strengthening these programs to increase access to higher education.

Of all the educational grant programs, the Pell Grant program is the largest source of grant aid to help students pay for the costs associated with higher education. Eligibility for Pell Grants is based on financial need, and this year alone, Pell Grants helped 5.3 million undergraduate students attain higher education.

Now, I am a strong supporter of the Pell Grant program. The $13.1 billion

that is being spent by the Federal Government on Pell Grants in fiscal year 2004 gives students access to higher education that otherwise might not have such access. But, I also recognize that the Pell Grant program was created in 1972 when the world was entirely different.

Our world today is much more dangerous than it was back then, and much more dangerous than when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and the Korean War.

Today, while we're sleeping, people in other parts of the world are contriving of every possible way to take our business, our economy, our security, and our freedoms away from us. September 11, 2001, should remind us of this.

Once, great oceans protected this Nation. But now, with the advent of the Internet and other modern technologies, the world is more connected than ever, and America is more vulnerable than ever in a lot of ways. Computer hackers all over the world try on a daily basis to hack into government computers. If successful, this could wreak havoc. Furthermore, each day, for whatever reason, people create computer viruses, and even the smallest virus can cost our economy billions of dollars.

Simply put, in today's day and age, our country faces new challenges like never before. I ask--are we prepared to meet these challenges?

Unfortunately, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough American graduates with certain majors to meet our new challenges. In engineering, math, computer sciences, hard sciences, and certain foreign languages--America is coming up short.

The statistics are alarming: the Third International Math and Science Study reports that U.S. 12th graders scored in only the 7th percentile in math worldwide, and only the 3rd percentile in science. This is near the bottom among major industrialized nations. The National Science Foundation reports that the fraction of U.S. Bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining for nearly 2 decades when compared to the rest of the world. While nearly two-thirds of Bachelor degrees in China and Singapore are science or engineering, they account for only about 17 percent in the United States. In fact, we currently rank 61st out of the 63 countries surveyed. Similarly, the National Science Board reports that the fraction of foreign born scientists and engineers in the U.S. workforce rose to an all time high by 2000. Amazingly, 38 percent of all people working in the United States with doctorate degrees in science or engineering are now foreign born.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: the American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Despite these statistics, up to now, this country has been able to meet its new challenges by importing brain power from foreign countries. We are fortunate to have so many smart minds from other countries willing to come to the United States to fill critical science and engineering positions. However, the need for home-grown talent is becoming more and more apparent.

First, international competition for this foreign brain power has become intense. As the National Science Board notes, ``Governments throughout the world recognize that a high-skill S&E workforce is essential for economic strength. Countries beyond the United States have been taking action to . . . attract foreign students and workers, and raise the attractiveness to their own citizenry of staying home or returning from abroad to serve growing national economies and research enterprises.'' This increased global competition for science and engineering workers ``comes at a time when demand for their skills is projected to rise significantly--both in the United States and throughout the global economy.''

Without action on our part, though, America will lose out in the competition for these technically talented workers. According to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America.

Increased global competition is not the only reason, though, that we have to promote a home-grown S&E workforce in America. In the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks.

The National Science Board put it best when they said, ``The ready availability of outstanding science and engineering talent from other countries is no longer assured, as international competition for the science and engineering workforce grows. Threats to world peace and domestic security create additional constraints on employment of foreign nationals in the United States.''

I think the message is clear: Our S&E workforce is in crisis. If we do not act to encourage more American citizens to enter the high shortage areas in engineering, math, and science, then America may lose its historical advantage as the world's innovator.

The consequences of this trend are also significant from a national security perspective. The defense-related research that goes into giving our men and women in the Armed Forces the best technology and equipment requires the special skills of engineers, scientists and computer scientists. Our military has always recognized these facts, and historically has been a tremendous supporter of science and engineering on a broad scale, from applied research to the most pure and esoteric of pursuits.

Let me quote some numbers which make clear what a huge investment our defense community makes in science and engineering: According to the National Science Foundation, the Defense Department is by far the largest single supporter of science and technology in the Federal Government, accounting for about half of the total research dollars spent; the proportion of defense funding for University research in critical disciplines is very significant. For example, 90 percent of basic astronautical research is defense-funded. And, as you all must realize, University research is vastly important for training subsequent generations of high-quality researchers; and in terms of technical manpower, defense-related scientists and engineers make up nearly 46 percent of the total Federal workforce. And, this includes 28 percent of all physical scientists, 48 percent of computer scientists and mathematicians, and 67 percent of all engineers.

For well over a century these investments have given us advantages in technological fields that have provided our men and women of our Armed Forces the most advanced and powerful tools in existence, from submarines and airplanes to unmanned vehicles and the Internet. These technologies not only give our military an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield, they also save many lives.

Yet, alarmingly, it is in the precise disciplines that produce these technologies and equipment where we see some of the greatest potential shortages in our science and engineering workforce. Numerous studies show that the number of domestic students in these critical fields has been falling steadily for years. And, without major investments to encourage more Americans to enter these critical fields, America is going to lose its status as the world's innovator and be placed in the precarious situation of having to rely on foreign countries to sell us the best equipment and the best technology for our troops. That is why it is paramount for America, from within, to produce the home-grown technical talent it needs.

The consequences of inaction are enormous. And, while America's challenge is substantial, it is not insurmountable. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help.

Under current law, the $13.1 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, 2 people

from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national security, homeland security, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every 2 years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded through a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have over $13 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a commonsense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

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