A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that dividend and interest income of individuals not be taxed at rates in excess of the maximum capital gains rate.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues from Maine to introduce legislation to restore fairness to the Medicare program. This package of legislation will reduce regional inequalities in Medicare spending and support providers of high-quality, low-cost Medicare services.

The high cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A survey issued a few days ago found that the cost of health care benefits for employees in this State rose 14.8 percent this year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That's 20 percent high than the national average of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees.

These costs are hitting our State hard, they are burdening businesses and employees, hurting health care providers, and preventing seniors from getting full access to the care that they deserve.

One of the major contributing factors to the high cost in our state is the inherent unfairness of the Medicare Program.

With the guidance and support of people across our State who are fighting for Medicare fairness. I have proposed this legislation to address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors, employers and health care providers. The Medicare program should encourage the kind of high-quality, cost-effective Medicare services that we have in Wisconsin. But as many in Wisconsin know, that's not the case.

To give an idea of how inequitable the distribution of Medicare dollars is, imagine identical twins over the age of 65. Both twins worked at the same company all their lives, at the same salary, and paid the same amount to the Federal Government in payroll taxes, the tax that goes into the Medicare Trust Fund.

But if one twin retired to New Orleans, Louisiana, and the other retired to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they would have vastly different health options under the Medicare system. The twin in Louisiana would get much more.

For example, in most parts of Louisiana, the first twin would have more options under Medicare. The high Medicare payments in those areas allow Medicare beneficiaries to choose between an HMO or traditional fee-for-service plan, and, because area health care providers are reimbursed at such a high rate, those providers can afford to offer seniors a broad range of health care services. The twin in Eau Claire does not have the same access to care, there are no options to choose from in terms of Medicare HMOs, and sometimes fewer health care agencies that can afford to provide care under the traditional fee-for- service plan.

How can two people with identical backgrounds, who paid the same amount in payroll taxes, have such different options under Medicare? They can because the distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair to Wisconsin, and much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds we get in return are lower than those received in many other states.

My legislation will take us a step in the right direction by reducing the inequities in Medicare payments to Wisconsin's hospitals, physicians, and skilled nursing facilities.

Last year, with the introduction my Medicare fairness legislation along with the efforts of many other Senators, we put Medicare fairness issues front and center in Congress. The Senate Budget Committee approved my amendment to promote Medicare fairness in any Medicare reform package. A wide range of Senators from both parties endorsed my proposal to create a Medicare fairness coalition. The House passed a number of Medicare fairness provisions that were a result of these successes, and both House and Senate leadership endorsed Medicare fairness issues. Now that we have finally brought these issues the attention that they deserve, we need to build on that momentum to pass Medicare fairness provisions into law.

My legislation demands Medicare fairness for Wisconsin and other affected States, plain and simple. Medicare shouldn't penalize high- quality providers of Medicare services, most of all. Medicare should stop penalizing seniors who depend on the program for their health care. They have worked had and paid into the program all their lives, and in return they deserve full access to the wide range of benefits that Medicare has to offer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward. I believe that we can re-balance the budget, while at the same time encouraging efficient, quality enhancing services, and that's what my legislation sets out to do.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

The cost of health care in Wisconsin is skyrocketing: A recent survey found that the cost of health benefits for employees in Wisconsin rose 14.8 percent this year, to an average of $6,940 per employee. That's 20 percent higher than the national average of $5,758 for workers in businesses with 500 or more employees.

We must curb these rapidly-increasing health care premiums. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are more than 90 employer-led coalitions across the United States that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers and approximately 34 million employees Nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 170 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their 110,000 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group- purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better attack the essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing.

Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pool are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2003. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have taken a beating in the marketplace in recent years.

When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, may change current law, and consumers won't know whether cheese is really all natural or not.

If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.

If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, imitation milk proteins known as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other part of the U.S.

I am deeply concerned by recent efforts to change America's natural cheese standard. This effort to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products flies in the face of logic and could create a loophole that could allow unlimited amounts of substandard imported milk proteins to enter U.S. cheese vats.

My legislation would close this loophole and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label.

Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate.

Recent proposals to change to our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese. These declines could result from concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate.

The addition of this kind of milk could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer.

This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers!

Consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into cheese, we are denying consumers the entire picture.

This legislation will require that labels paint the entire picture for the consumer, and allow them enough information to select cheese made from truly natural ingredients.

Allowing MPCs or dry ultra-filtered milk into natural cheeses would also harm dairy producers throughout the United States. Some estimate that the annual effect of the change on the dairy farm sector of the economy could be more than $100 million.

The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily-subsidized products would displace natural domestic dairy ingredients.

These unnatural domestic dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and might further depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices result in increased costs to the dairy price support program. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program.

This change does not benefit the dairy farmer, consumer or taxpayer. Who then is it good for?

It would benefit only unscrupulous foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck at the expense of Americans.

This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk from being included in America's natural cheese standard.

Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to stack the deck against America's dairy farmers. And we must pass my legislation that prevents a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases depending on the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creating artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices have led to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in Federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is not the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the Nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the market place, but because the system discriminates against it. Today, Wisconsin loses dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate

of the region. Other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

In an free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be fair. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this out dated system and work to eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system.

Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation.

When dairy farmers across the country voted on a referendum four years ago, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them.

This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but not always in the interest of their producer owner-members.

I do think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, but I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other states tell me that they do not agree with their Cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count.

After speaking to farmers and officials at USDA, I have learned that if a Cooperative bloc votes, individual members simply have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Coops and their members do not always have identical interests. We shouldn't ask farmers to ignore that fact.

The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2003 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot if one or two or ten or all of the members chose to vote on their own.

This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Coops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent farmers interest, farmers are likely to vote along with the coops, but whether they join the coops or not, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views.

I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal Tax Code percentage depletion allowances for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. I am pleased that the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, is joining me as an original cosponsor.

President Clinton proposed the elimination of the percentage depletion allowance on public lands in his FY 2001 budget. President Clinton's FY 2001 budget estimated that, under this legislation, income to the Federal treasury from the elimination of percentage depletion allowances for hardrock mining on public lands would total $487 million over 5 years and $1.20 billion over 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would save $410 million over 5 years and $823 million over 10 years. These savings are calculated as the excess amount of Federal revenues above what would be collected if depletion allowances were limited to sunk costs in capital investments. Percentage depletion allowances are contained in the tax code for extracted fuel, minerals, metal and other mined commodities. These allowances have a combined value, according to estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, of $4.8 billion.

These percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That's right, these allowances were initiated nearly one hundred years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the Tax Code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration and output. Percentage depletion also makes it possible, however, to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion, and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment, the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve, over the period during which the reserve produces income. Using cost depletion, a company would deduct a portion of its original capital investment minus any previous deductions, in an amount that is equal to the fraction of the remaining recoverable reserves. Under this method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue--from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed, let me be clear on that point, exceed the capital that the company invested.

The rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the U.S. Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

In addition to repealing the percentage depletion allowances for minerals mined on public lands, my bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $120 million dollars, would be deposited into an interest bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. The Mineral Policy Center estimates that there are 557,650 abandoned hardrock mine sites nationwide and the cost of clearing them up will range from $32.7 billion to $71.5 billion.

There are currently no comprehensive Federal or State programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: all taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, yet these subsidies remain persistent tax expenditures that raise the deficit for all citizens or shift a greater tax burden to

other taxpayers to compensate for the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is fairly straightforward. It eliminates the percentage depletion allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

Though at one time, there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses.

The time has come for the Federal Government to get out of the business of subsidizing one business over another. We can no longer afford its costs in dollars or its cost to the health of our citizens. This legislation is one step toward the goal of ending these corporate welfare subsidies.

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

Mr. President I rise today with my colleague from Maine to introduce legislation to help first responders do what they do so well, protect our communities in an emergency.

The Department of Homeland Security will create a massive shift in the Federal Government. Nobody will feel the impact of this shift more than the brave men and women who work in law enforcement, as firefighters, as rescue workers, as emergency medical service providers, and in capacities as first responders.

We must make sure that these first responders have the resources that they need.

While I commend the Administration for raising the funding dedicated to first responders in the President's budget, I am concerned that new layers of bureaucracy and reorganization could reduce these funding levels, or just as harmful, put up barriers to first responders actually receiving these funds.

The Federal agencies in the proposed Department of Homeland Security must listen to the priorities of our communities. After all, the needs of first responders vary between regions, as well as between rural and urban communities. In Wisconsin, I have heard needs ranging from training to equipment to more emergency personnel in the field, just to name a few.

My legislation would promote effective coordination among Federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security and ensure that our first responders, our firefighters, law enforcement, rescue, and EMS providers, can help Federal agencies and the new Department of Homeland Security to improve existing programs and future initiatives.

It would first establish a Federal Liaison on Homeland Security in each state and coordinate between the Department of Homeland Security and state and local first responders.

This office would serve not only as an avenue to exchange ideas, but also as a resource to ensure that the funding and programs are effective.

For example, my hope is that the Homeland Security Department will make programs such as the Fire Act a high priority. The Fire Act provides grants directly to fire departments across our nation for training and equipment needs. I recently visited one excellent example of this program in West Allis, Wisconsin, where the Department received a grant in 2001 to implement a wellness and fitness program for their firefighters. I am told that it is one of the first departments in the State to meet the goals of this program, and I commend the department for its efforts.

My legislation would also direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and prioritize their activities that support first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars.

As part of this coordination, the First Responders Support Act establishes a new advisory committee of those in the first responder community to identify and streamline effective programs.

Last year, both the original Senate and House homeland security bills lacked the provisions needed to ensure that the new Department of Homeland Security communicates and coordinates effectively with first responders.

During the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee mark-up of the Homeland Security bill, the Committee added our First Responders Support Act to the legislation. They did so knowing that we would have to reconcile the overlap between our legislation and the language in the Chairman's mark creating an office for state and local government coordination. Our amendment, which was approved by the full Senate, did just that. Unfortunately, our proposal was dropped from the final bill during backroom negotiations.

Because of this omission, I promised to make enacting this legislation one of our top priorities this Congress. That's why we are re-introducing this legislation today.

We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our first responders, and helping them get the resources that they need to provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve our strong support.

In almost any disaster, the local first responders and health care providers play an indispensable role. If the Department of Homeland Security is to be effective, we need to ensure that the resources are delivered to the front line personnel in an effective and coordinated manner. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this proposal and support our first responders.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that would terminate the operation of the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications system, Project ELF, which is located in Clam Lake, WI, and Republic, MI.

I would like to thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for cosponsoring this bill.

Project ELF is a Cold War relic that was designed to send short one- way messages to ballistic and attack submarines that are submerged in deep waters. The bill that I am introducing today would terminate operations at Project ELF, while maintaining the infrastructure in Wisconsin and Michigan in the event that a resumption in operations becomes necessary.

Project ELF is ineffective and unnecessary in the post-Cold War era. This antiquated system does not facilitate the rapid mobilization that our military says it needs to respond to current threats from weapons of mass destruction. The horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, emphasized the need for rapid, reliable two-way communications. Since ELF cannot transmit detailed messages, it serves as an expensive ``beeper'' system to tell submarines to come to the surface to receive messages from other sources, and the subs cannot send a return message to ELF in the event of an emergency. It takes ELF four minutes to send a three-letter message to a deeply submerged submarine.

With the end of the Cold War, Project ELF becomes harder and harder to justify. Our submarines no longer need to take that extra precaution against Soviet nuclear forces. They can now surface on a regular basis with less danger of detection or attack. They can also receive more complicated messages through very low frequency, VLF, radio waves or lengthier messages through satellite systems. Taxpayers should not be asked to continue to pay for what amounts to a beeper system that tells our submarines to come to the surface to receive orders from another, more sophisticated source.

Further, continued operation of this facility is opposed by most residents in my state. The members of the Wisconsin delegation have fought hard for years to close down Project ELF. I have introduced legislation during each Congress since taking office in 1993 to terminate it, and I have recommended it for closure to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

Project ELF has had a turbulent history. Since the idea for ELF was first proposed in 1958, the project has been changed or canceled several times. Residents of Wisconsin have opposed ELF since its inception, but for years we were told that the national security considerations of the Cold War outweighed our concerns about this installation in our State. Ironically, this system became fully operational in 1989, the same year the tide of democracy began to sweep across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Now, fourteen years later, the hammer and sickle has fallen and the Russian submarine fleet is in disarray. But Project ELF still remains as a constant, expensive reminder to the people of my State that many at the Department of Defense remain focused on the past.

There also continue to be a number of public health and environmental concerns associated with Project ELF. For almost two decades, we have received inconclusive data on this project's effects on Wisconsin and Michigan residents. In 1984, a U.S. District Court ordered that ELF be shut down because the Navy paid inadequate attention to the system's possible health effects and violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Interestingly, that decision was overturned because U.S. national security, at the time, prevailed over public health and environmental concerns.

Numerous medical studies point to a possible link between exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and a variety of human health effects and abnormalities in both animal and plant species.

In 1999, after six years of research, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences released a report that did not prove conclusively a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer, but the report did not disprove it, either. Serious questions remain, and many of my constituents are rightly concerned about this issue.

In addition, I have heard from a number of dairy farmers who are convinced that the stray voltage associated with ELF transmitters has demonstrably reduced milk production. As we continue our efforts to return to a sustainable balanced federal budget, and as the Department of Defense continues to struggle to address readiness and other concerns, it is clear that outdated programs such as Project ELF should be closed down.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic cost-of-living adjustments for Congressional pay.

As my Colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability. Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the record.

Regrettably, current law permits Members to avoid such an open procedure. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. Unless Congress affirmatively acts, the annual pay raise takes effect.

This stealth pay raise technique began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. In section 704 of that Act, Members of Congress voted to make themselves entitled to an annual raise equal to half a percentage point less than the employment cost index, one measure of inflation.

On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise. Traditionally, this has been done on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. But that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. In one instance, the Treasury- Postal bill was slipped into the conference report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and thus completely shielded from amendment. And during 2002, the Senate did not consider the Treasury- Postal bill at all.

This makes getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise a haphazard affair at best. And it should not be that way. No one should have to force a debate and public vote on the pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end.

The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated

by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. Almost 214 years ago, on September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by three-fourths of the States.

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: `No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.''

I try to honor that limitation in my own practices. In my own case, throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. The stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed last year, at a minimum, certainly violate the spirit of that amendment.

This practice must end. To address it, I am reintroducing this bill to end the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional pay. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise Congressional pay. My bill would simply require us to vote in the open. We owe our constituents no less.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure aimed at curbing wasteful spending. In the face of our return to Federal deficits, we must prioritize and eliminate programs that can no longer be sustained with limited Federal dollars, or where a more cost- effective means of fulfilling those functions can be substituted. The measure that I introduce today eliminates or modifies three Federal programs: it establishes a means test for large agribusinesses receiving subsidized water from the Bureau of Reclamation, it terminates the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS, a medical school run by the Department of Defense, and it ends the future production of submarine launched D5 missiles, commonly known as the Trident II missiles. Eliminating or reforming these three programs would save the taxpayers in excess of $8 billion over ten years.

The irrigation means test provision is drawn from legislation that I that have sponsored in previous Congresses to reduce the amount of Federal irrigation subsidies received by large agribusiness interests. I believe that reforming Federal water pricing policy by reducing subsidies is important as a means to achieve our broader objectives of achieving a truly balanced budget. This legislation is also needed to curb fundamental abuses of reclamation law that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars every year.

In 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed legislation, which came to be known as the Reclamation Act of 1902, to encourage development of family farms throughout the western United States. The idea was to provide needed water for areas that were otherwise dry and give small farms, those no larger than 160 acres, a chance, with a helping hand from the Federal Government, to establish themselves. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, since the passage of the Reclamation Act, the Federal Government has spent $21.8 billion to construct 133 water projects in the west which provide water for irrigation. Agribusinesses, and other project beneficiaries, are required under the law to repay to the Federal Government their allocated share of the costs of constructing these projects.

As a result of the subsidized financing provided by the Federal Government, however, some of the beneficiaries of Federal water projects repay considerably less than their full share of these costs. According to the 1996 GAO report, agribusinesses generally receive the largest amount of Federal financial assistance. Since the initiation of the irrigation program in 1902, construction costs associated with irrigation have been repaid without interest. The GAO further found, in reviewing the Bureau of Reclamation's financial reports, that $16.9 billion, or 78 percent, of the $21.8 billion of Federal investment in water projects is considered to be reimbursable. Of the reimbursable costs, the largest share, $7.1 billion, is allocated to irrigation interests. GAO also found that the Bureau of Reclamation will likely shift $3.4 billion of the debt owed by agribusinesses to other users of the water projects for repayment.

There are several reasons why large agribusinesses continue to receive such significant subsidies. Under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, Congress acted to expand the size of the farms that could receive subsidized water from 160 acres to 960 acres. The RRA of 1982 expressly prohibits farms that exceed 960 acres in size from receiving federally- subsidized water. These restrictions were added to the Reclamation law to close loopholes through which Federal subsidies were flowing to large agribusinesses rather than the small family farmers that Reclamation projects were designed to serve. Agribusinesses were expected to pay full cost for all water received on land in excess of their 960 acre entitlement.

Despite the express mandate of Congress, regulations promulgated under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 have failed to keep big agricultural water users from receiving Federal subsidies. The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior continue to find that the acreage limits established in law are circumvented through the creation of arrangements such as farming trusts. These trusts, which in total acreage well exceed the 960 acre limit, are comprised of smaller units that are not subject to the reclamation acreage cap. These smaller units are farmed under a single management agreement often through a combination of leasing and ownership.

The Department of the Interior has acknowledged that these trusts do exist. Interior published a final rulemaking in 1998 to require farm operators who provide services to more than 960 nonexempt acres westwide, held by a single trust or legal entity or any combination of trusts and legal entities to submit RRA forms to the district(s) where such land is located. Water districts are now required to provide specific information about farm operators to Interior annually. This information is an important step toward enforcing the legislation that I am reintroducing today.

My legislation combines various elements of proposals introduced by other members of Congress to close loopholes in the 1982 legislation and to impose a $500,000 means-test. This new approach limits the amount of subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in excess of the 960 acre limit which claimed $500,000 or more in gross income, as reported on its most recent IRS tax form. If the $500,000 threshold were exceeded, an income ratio would

be used to determine how much of the water should be delivered to the user at the full-cost rate, and how much at the below-cost rate. For example, if a 961 acre operation earned $1 million dollars, a ratio of $500,000, the means-test value, divided by its gross income would determine the full cost rate. Thus the water user would pay the full cost rate on half of their acreage and the below-cost rate on the remaining half.

This means-testing proposal was featured in the 2000 Green Scissors report. This report is compiled annually by Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense and supported by a number of environmental, consumer and taxpayer groups. The premise of the report is that there are a number of subsidies and projects that could be cut to both reduce the deficit and benefit the environment. The Green Scissors recommendation on means-testing water subsidies indicates that if a test is successful in reducing subsidy payments to the highest grossing 10 percent of farms, then the Federal Government would recover between $440 million and $1.1 billion per year, or at least $2.2 billion over five years.

When countless Federal programs are subjected to various types of means-tests to limit benefits to those who truly need assistance, it makes little sense to continue to allow large business interests to dip into a program intended to help small entities struggling to survive. Taxpayers have legitimate concerns when they learn that their hard- earned tax dollars are being expended to assist large corporate interests in select regions of the country, particularly in tight budgetary times.

The second element of my bill will help our Armed Services obtain physician services at a more reasonable cost by terminating the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USUHS. The measure is one I proposed when I ran for the U.S. Senate, and was part of a larger, 82-point plan to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, project that terminating the school would save $273 million over the next five years, and when completely phased-out, would generate $450 million in savings over five years.

USUHS was created in 1972 to meet an expected shortage of military medical personnel. Today, however, USUHS accounts for only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, less than 12 percent in 1994, according to CBO. This contrasts dramatically with the military's scholarship program, which provided over 80 percent of the military's new physicians in that year.

What is even more troubling is that USUHS is also the single most costly source of new physicians for the military. CBO reports that based on figures from 1995, each USUHS trained physician costs the military $615,000. By comparison, the scholarship program cost about $125,000 per doctor, with other sources providing new physicians at a cost of $60,000. As CBO has noted, even adjusting for the lengthier service commitment required of USUHS trained physicians, the cost of training them is still higher than that of training physicians from other sources, an assessment shared by the Pentagon itself. Indeed, CBO's estimate of the savings generated by this measure also includes the cost of obtaining physicians from other sources.

The House of Representatives has voted to terminate this program on several occasions, joining others, ranging from the Grace Commission to the CBO, in raising the question of whether this medical school, which graduated its first class in 1980, should be closed because it is so much more costly than alternative sources of physicians for the military.

The real issue we must address is whether USUHS is essential to the needs of today's military structure, or if we can do without this costly program. The proponents of USUHS frequently cite the higher retention rates of USUHS graduates over physicians obtained from other sources as a justification for continuation of this program, but while a greater percentage of USUHS trained physicians may remain in the military longer than those from other sources, the Pentagon indicates that the alternative sources already provide an appropriate mix of retention rates. Testimony by the Department of Defense before the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel noted that the military's scholarship program meets the retention needs of the services.

And while USUHS provides only a small fraction of the military's new physicians, relying primarily on these other sources has not compromised the ability of military physicians to meet the needs of the Pentagon. According to the Office of Management and Budget, of the approximately 2,000 physicians serving in Desert Storm, only 103, about 5 percent, were USUHS trained.

USUHS has some dedicated supporters in the U.S. Senate, and I realize that there are legitimate arguments that those supporters have made in defense of this institution. The problem, however, is that the Federal Government cannot afford to continue every program that provides some useful function, especially when such services can be procured elsewhere.

The final provision of my legislation terminates another wasteful defense program, the continued production of new Trident II submarine- launched ballistic missiles. Trident submarines, and the deadly submarine-launched ballistic missiles they carry, were designed specifically to attack targets inside the Soviet Union from waters off the continental United States.

Let me say at the outset that this provision would in no way prevent the Navy from maintaining the current arsenal of Trident II missiles. Nor would it affect those Trident II missiles that are currently in production.

The Navy currently has ten Trident II submarines, each of which carries 24 Trident II, D5, missiles. Each of these missiles contains eight independently targetable nuclear warheads, for a total of 192 warheads per submarine. Each warhead packs between 300 to 450 kilotons of explosive power.

By way of comparison, the first atomic bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima generated 15 kilotons of force. Let's do the math for just one fully-equipped Trident II submarine. Each warhead can generate up to 450 kilotons of force. Each missile has eight warheads, and each submarine has 24 missiles. That equals 86.4 megatons of force per submarine. That means that each Trident II submarine carries the power to deliver devastation which is the equivalent of 5,760 Hiroshimas.

And that is just one fully equipped submarine. As I noted earlier, the Navy currently has ten such submarines.

Through fiscal year 2003, the Navy will have been authorized to purchase 408 Trident II missiles for these submarines. Even taking into account the 86 Trident II missiles that have been expended in testing through calendar year 2002, the Navy will still have 322 missiles in stock once those authorized to be purchased during FY2003 are completed.

The Navy needs 240 missiles to fully equip ten Trident II submarines with 24 missiles each. That leaves 82 ``extra'' missiles in the Navy's inventory. And the Navy still plans to buy at least 132 more missiles over the next two years, for a total purchase of 540 missiles. My bill would terminate production of these missiles after the currently authorized 408, saving taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next ten years.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the recent resumption of nuclear activities by North Korea, serve as chilling reminders that there is still a potential threat from rogue states, and from independent operators such as al-Qaeda, who seek to acquire ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. I also recognize that our submarine fleet and our arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons still have an important role to play in warding off these threats. Their role, however, has diminished dramatically from what it was at the height of the Cold War. Our missile procurement decisions should reflect that change and should reflect the realities of the post-Cold War world.

Our current ballistic missile capability is far superior to that of any other county on the globe. And the capability of the Russian military, the very force which these missiles were designed to counter, is seriously degraded.

We should not be buying more Trident II missiles at a time when the governments of the United States and Russia have signed the Moscow Treaty, which calls for deep reductions in our nuclear forces. To spend scarce resources on building more missiles now

is short-sighted and could seriously undermine our efforts to negotiate further arms reductions with Russia.

In conclusion, the time has come to rethink our Federal budget priorities, and to redirect needed funds appropriately. Eliminating or reforming these three programs will go a long way to doing just that, and I urge Congress to act swiftly to save money for the taxpayers. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Donald C. Pence of Stanford, NC, for compensation for the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay dependency and indemnity compensation to Kathryn E. Box, the now-deceased mother of Donald C. Pence. It is rare that a Federal agency admits a mistake. In this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs has admitted that a mistake was made and explored ways to permit payment under the law, including equitable relief, but has found no provisions authorizing the Department to release the remaining benefits that were unpaid to Mrs. Box at the time of her death. My bill would correct this injustice, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Cooperative Housing Corporations, co-ops, to convert to condominium forms of ownership.

Under current law, a conversion from a cooperative shareholding to condominium ownership is taxable at a corporate level as well as an individual level. The conversion is treated as a corporate liquidation, and therefore taxed accordingly. In addition, a capital gains tax is levied on any increase between the owner's basis in the co-op share pre-conversion and the market value of the condominium interest post- conversion. This double taxation dissuades condominium conversion because the owner is being taxed on the transaction which is nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. While the Internal Revenue Service concedes that there are no discernable advantages to society of the cooperative form of ownership, they do not view Federal tax statutes as providing sufficient flexibility with which to address the obstacles of conversion.

Cooperative housing organizes the ownership structure into a corporation, with shares of stock for each apartment unit, which are sold to buyers. The corporation then issues a proprietary lease entitling the owner of the stock to the use of the unit in perpetuity. Because the investment is in the form of a share of stock, investors sometimes lose their entire investment as a result of debt incurred by the corporation in construction and development. In addition, due to the structure of a cooperative housing corporation, a prospective purchaser of shares in the corporation from an existing tenant- stockholders has difficulty obtaining mortgage financing for the purchase. Furthermore, tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing also encounter difficulties in securing bank loans for the full value of their investment.

As a result, owners of cooperative housing are increasingly looking toward conversion to the condominium structure of ownership. Condominium ownership permits the owner of a unit to own the unit itself, eliminating the cooperative housing dilemma of corporate debt that supersedes the investment of cooperative housing share owners, and other financial concerns.

The legislation I introduce today will remove the penalty of double taxation from the conversion of cooperative housing to condominium ownership, and will greatly benefit co-op owners across the nation. The bill does not apply to cooperatives which have been or are now being financed by any Federal, State, or local programs for the purpose of assisting in the construction of affordable housing cooperatives or the conversion of rental units to affordable housing cooperatives. I urge my colleagues' consideration of and support for this measure.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our country.

Currently, retired members of the Armed Forces are permitted to travel

on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected disabilities.

We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their sacrifices.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Physical and Occupational Therapy Education Act of 2003. This legislation will increase educational opportunities for physical therapy and occupational therapy practitioners in order to meet the growing demand for the valuable services they provide in our communities.

Several factors contribute to the present need for federal support in this area. The rapid aging of our Nation's population, the demands of the AIDS crisis, increasing emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, and the growth of home health care has increased the demand for physical and occupational therapy services. This demand has exceeded our ability to educate an adequate number of physical therapists and occupational therapists. In addition, technological advances are allowing injured and disabled individuals to survive conditions that would have proven fatal in past years.

An inadequate number of physical therapists has led to an increased reliance on foreign-educated, non-immigrant temporary workers who enter the U.S. as H-1B visa holders. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform has identified physical therapy and occupational therapy as having the highest number of H-1B visa holders in the United States, second only to computer specialists.

In addition to the shortage of practitioners, a shortage of faculty impedes the expansion of established education programs. The critical shortage of doctoral-prepared occupational therapists and physical therapists has resulted in a depleted pool of potential faculty. This bill would assist in the development of qualified faculty by giving preference to grant applicants seeking to develop and expand post- professional programs for the advanced training of physical and occupational therapists.

The legislation I introduce today would provide necessary assistance to physical and occupational therapy programs throughout the country. The investment we make will help reduce America's dependence on foreign labor and create highly-skilled, high-wage employment opportunities for American citizens.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare, Part B, Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility program.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Nursing School Clinics Act of 2003. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.

Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university or nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as compared to conventional primary health care.

This bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery in underserved areas with the education of advanced practices nurses. To accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act of 2003 recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the medically underserved.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered through Medicare, Part B. The three proposed changes contained in this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the profession that is similar to other health care professionals reimbursed through the Medicare program.

First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for services provided to a client who is hospitalized.

Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a psychology post-doctoral program.

Psychologists have made a unique contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find solutions to these issues.

Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health professionals who have participated in these specialized federally funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with the underserved.

While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to initiate effective treatment.

Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be of special benefit in addressing these problems.

Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the nation's underserved.

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

Mr. President, all too often we find that our Nation's civilian employees of the Federal Government who have been forcibly detained or interred by a hostile government do not receive the recognition they deserve. My bill would correct this inequity and provide a prisoner of war medal for such citizens.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jim K. Yoshida, to obtain recognition of his service with the U.S. military in Korea so that he may obtain veteran's status.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 to give our country the opportunity to right a wrong committed decades ago by providing Philippine-born veterans of World War II, who served in the United States Armed Forces, their hard-earned, due compensation.

The Philippines became a United States possession in 1898, when it was ceded from Spain following the Spanish-American War. In 1934, the Congress enacted the Philippine Independence Act, Public Law 73-127, which provided a 10-year time frame for the independence of the Philippines. Between 1934 and final independence in 1946, the United States retained certain powers over the Philippines, including the right to call all military forces organized by the newly-formed Commonwealth government into the service of the United States Armed Forces.

On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. Under this order, Filipinos were entitled to full veterans' benefits. More than 100,000 Filipinos volunteered for the Philippine Commonwealth Army and fought alongside the United States Armed Forces.

Shortly after Japan's surrender, Congress enacted the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 for the purpose of sending American troops to occupy enemy lands, and to oversee military installations at various overseas locations.

A provision included in the Recruitment Act called for the enlistment of Philippine citizens to constitute a new body of scouts. The New Philippine Scouts were authorized to receive pay and allowances for services performed throughout the Western Pacific. Although hostilities had ceased, wartime service of the New Philippine Scouts continued as a matter of law until the end of 1946.

Despite their sacrifices, on February 18, 1946, Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the Rescission Act of 1946 and declaring the service performed by the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans as not ``active service,'' thus denying many benefits to which these veterans were entitled.

On May 27, 1946, the Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriations Rescission Act, which included a provision to limit veterans' benefits provided to Filipinos. This provision duplicated the language that had eliminated veterans' benefits under the First Rescission Act, and placed similar restrictions on veterans of the New Philippine Scouts. Thus, the Filipino veterans who fought in the service of the United States during World War II were precluded from receiving most veterans' benefits that had been available to them before 1946, and that are available to all other veterans of our armed forces regardless of race, national origin, or citizenship status.

The Congress tried to rectify the wrong committed against the Filipino veterans of World War II by amending the Nationality Act of 1940, to grant the veterans the privilege of becoming United States citizens for having served in the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. The law expired at the end of 1946, but not before the United States had withdrawn its sole naturalization examiner from the Philippines for a nine-month period. This

effectively denied Filipino veterans the opportunity to become citizens during this nine-month window. Forty-five years later, under the Immigration Act of 1990, certain Filipino veterans who had served during World War II became eligible for United States citizenship. Between November, 1990, and February, 1995, approximately 24,000 veterans took advantage of this opportunity and became United States citizens.

Although progress has been made, we must, as a nation, correct fully the injustice caused by the Rescission Acts by providing equal treatment for the service and sacrifice by these brave men. The Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 will compensate eligible veterans by providing a number of needed benefits: Dependency and Indeminity Compensation to surviving widows of service-connected veterans living in the United States; a payment increase to New Philippine Scouts and survivors residing in the United States from 50 percent to the full dollar amount for service-connected disability compensation; authorization of non-service connected disability pensions for veterans residing in the Philippines, but at a rate of $100 per month, which matches the amount of the veterans' pension received by them from the Philippine government; access to veterans hospitals for non-service connected disabled veterans in the same manner as United States veterans; and $500,000 per year to the Outpatient Clinic in Manila.

Heroes should never be forgotten or ignored, so let us not turn our backs on those who sacrificed so much. Many of the Filipinos who fought so hard for our nation have been honored with American citizenship, but let us now work to repay all of these brave men for their sacrifices by providing them the veterans' benefits they have earned.

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

Mr. Speaker, we gather here for a well-deserved tribute to our troops in the Middle East. Yet just before this, we were debating the President's budget which cruelly cut $25 billion of veterans benefits, including disabled veterans. Is this how Republicans would honor those who have made great sacrifices in defense of our country? Is that how they would boost the morale of our current troops? Every major veterans organization has denounced these cuts as unconscionable, but now the pending business before us is a little bit different.

So I rise to reject these efforts to piggyback support for President Bush's dangerous policies on to a simple, but deserved, resolution supporting our troops. I trust the American people to see through this attempt to coerce endorsement of his ``preventive war'' doctrine.

I fully support our troops and offer my prayers for their safe return. I am an Army veteran myself; I care deeply about their well- being. And precisely for that reason, I cannot in good conscience vote for tonight's resolution, a carefully crafted document to force endorsement of President Bush's doctrine of preventive war, allowing him to attack countries whenever or wherever he chooses. I will not provide support for such a dangerous doctrine.

For years to come, it will unnecessarily put current and future members of our Armed Forces in harm's way, even when our national security is not really threatened.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush is about to unleash the dogs of war. He has set the clock ticking toward an unprecedented barrage of destruction dropped on a city of 6 million human beings. The barrage is oddly named the days of ``shock and awe.'' All Americans who hold human life precious should watch the clock run down, not with ``awe'' but with fear and trembling. The sad truth is that we are lurching towards an unnecessary war that President Bush seems determined to launch.

Apparently, therefore, the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces are about to head into harm's way. We all offer them our support as they try to do their duty, and we send our prayers for their safe return. But we must also be faithful to our duty, a duty entrusted exclusively to the Congress by our Founding Fathers. That is the solemn duty to decide whether the United States should go to war.

The Constitution's framers emphatically entrusted that decision to the Congress alone. They were adamant that the Executive not play a role--although once war began the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief to implement that decision. The Framers were so intent on excluding the President that they rejected an offer to share the power to declare war between the Congress and the Executive.

I know that President Bush, and many of my colleagues believe that the Congress properly authorized war against Iraq last Fall, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I respectfully disagree. We have not performed our duty yet. Last fall Congress enacted a resolution that generally authorized the president to fight terrorism and to seek enforcement of previous U.N. Resolutions on Iraq. But in reality, that resolution bucked the duty constitutionally conferred on Congress to the President. It let the President decide to choose when and where and against whom to start a war. In short, it dodged the decision and sought to delegate an authority that may not be delegated.

The administration's supporters argue that legal precedents allow the Congress to provide an authorization of war that is functionally equivalent to the now rarely-used formal Declaration of War. That entirely misses the point. It is not the format which is at issue; it is ``who decides?''

It was clear, at that time, from the congressional debate, from Executive Branch statements, and from the resolution itself that the diplomatic route would be pursued first, by going through the U.N. Subsequently, in response to a broad national consensus, the U.S. spearheaded U.N. Security Council passage of Resolution 1441 that imposed a new inspection regime. In other words, it was clear last fall that the decision of whether to declare war was being put off for a later date.

In the months since then, it has become increasingly clear that the decision on going to war would turn on two crucial assessments. The first would be an assessment of the results of that inspection program.

The second assessment, and the ultimate judgment, would require weighing the implications of the inspection results and other information about what threat Iraq poses to the U.S. against the full costs--fiscal, diplomatic, casualties and increased terrorism--of going to war. Clearly these are not military judgments for a Commander-in- Chief. They are precisely the kind of complex national policy judgments that the Founding Fathers conferred on the Congress in matters of war and peace.

Yet in the present circumstances, the Congress has abdicated any role in that fateful decision. The entire world has been riveted on whether the American President would decide to declare war against Iraq. President Bush has brazenly told journalists and Members of Congress alike that it is his decision, and his decision alone. This is a perversion of the Constitution.

Even if one argues that Congress properly exercised its constitutional duties, and that the President thereby has all necessary authority to start a war the fundamental questions remain. ``Why war?'' ``Why now?'' And most importantly, ``Will waging war in Iraq make us more secure or less secure?''

Bush's war would have disastrous consequences for every American. War is about devastation, destruction and death. The American people are not bloodthirsty. We want war only if our country is in imminent danger. Otherwise, a war's human and economic costs are too great. The human devastation of death, injury and destruction is obvious. In addition, it will rob us of resources urgently needed by America's working families and less fortunate.

Even in terms of national security, an all-out war will rob Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars needed for the first line of defense in homeland security, on which we have made far too little progress since the tragedy of 9/11. As the President repeats his unverified mantra of ``threats to national security,'' cities across this land are laying off police, firemen, and emergency medical services teams--the so-call ``first responders'' to any new terrorist attack. They must do so because this Administration's ``first response'' to empty city treasuries across America has been one word: ``Tough.''

This is not merely a partisan spat, nor a Washington insiders' policy dispute. The citizens' crusade to stop an immoral war in Iraq has been nothing less than a noble struggle for our Nation's soul. Thus far, that struggle has not succeeded. But we will not give up. We must commit ourselves to stopping hostilities and re-weaving the torn fabric of international organizations with the same dedication and urgency with which we strove to stop segregation and the Vietnam war, and finally brought our Government to its senses.

President Bush repeatedly insists that for him ``war is a last resort.'' But his actions reveal that war was really his first choice, all along. His attempts to make it politically palatable by badgering, bullying and bribing countries into a counterfeit coalition have been a mere fig leaf transparent to the entire world.

President Bush has failed to present compelling evidence that Iraq currently is a threat to our national security. One rationale after another has been disproved. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense have presented a kaleidoscope of ever-changing rationale as they tried to stay one jump ahead of ``truth squads'' exposing their disinformation--at the U.N., among skeptical Members of Congress and the media, and even in their own intelligence agencies.

Americans have readily borne the burden of war when attacked or actually threatened. But America cannot, in good conscience, start a war so costly in blood and treasure simply on the basis of circumstantial evidence and speculation that, sometime in the unspecified future, Iraq may present an actual threat to the U.S.

Bush's war against Iraq is:

A war that will devastate a country of 26 million and cause damage that will take years to undo;

A war that will see many American casualties, and that could fracture our fragile economy;

A war that will destabilize the Middle East;

A war that will swell the ranks of terrorist recruits;

A war that will weaken our fight against terrorism, at home and abroad, and that will cost billions of dollars desperately needed for programs in Detroit and other cities;

A war that will set a terrible precedent, in a world of growing numbers of nuclear states, for any country to launch a preventive war against opponents deemed a possible future threat; and

A war not really wanted by the American people, our military commanders or our allies.

Worst of all, it is a war that, as the CIA admits, will only make it more likely that Saddam would unleash whatever unconventional weapons he does have against our troops, Israel and our other allies. There is no evidence Saddam seeks to commit suicide. We deterred him from using weapons of mass destruction during Desert Storm. If he faces destruction, however, Saddam may well seek to play Sampson and pull down the Temple for lethal revenge.

Last weekend, several of the Nation's leading newspapers seemed to suddenly discover all of these grave costs of war in Iraq. Article after article reported with an air of sudden discovery that:

The war would drastically increase the likelihood of Saddam's using weapons of mass destruction;

That it would almost certainly escalate dramatically terrorist attacks against Americans;

That many U.S. military commanders feared it would undermine the real war against terrorism;

That their could be extensive casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians; and

That, even following a quick ``military victory'' against Saddam, we could be mired in

an Iraqi quicksand of tribal feuds and guerrilla warfare for years.

I took cold comfort from the irony of the media's belated ``discoveries.'' It would have been far more useful to their readers if the media had discovered this costly side of the war ledger months earlier. Instead, like the Administration, most media coverage focused only on whether, absent other concerns, it was desirable to prevent Saddam's pursuit of armaments and remove his regime--as if there were no competing costs on the other side of the ledger to be carefully weighed in deciding whether war would be a net plus for America.

There is still time for President Bush to avoid starting the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. There is still time--but precious little time--for the American people to speak out against a war that few of them support. If the war commences, there is time for it to be brought to a rapid end and areversion to diplomatic efforts and enhanced inspections.

We should remember the warning of General Anthony Zinni. A distinguished Marine Commandant and head of U.S. Central Command, which guards the Middle East, Zinni reminded us that military commanders know the full horrors of war and hesitate to plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake. On the other hand, Zinni warned, those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the quickest to beat the drums of war.

Those are harsh words. The administration will condemn whoever utters them as partisan and unpatriotic--just as the Johnson White House condemned King's questioning of Vietnam. The Bush team has already spread that slander, in order to stop erosion of support for the war as the public learns the truth. Are the military veterans and retired generals opposed to this war unpatriotic? Are families of those who were killed on 9/11 and who oppose this war partisan? That is outrageous.

I know many of my colleagues have in good faith been convinced that Iraq is a threat to us now. But they have been the target of a Niagara of propaganda, especially the Vice President's early insistence that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that Saddam had nuclear weapons now-- both of which claims have long been disavowed by our intelligence community. Many other assertions and premises used by the administration to ``market their product,'' in the revealing phrase of the White House Chief of staff, have crumbled under close scrutiny.

I would ask my colleagues who support the war to reconsider their view in light of these facts:

Almost the entire world is strongly against this war; this includes the majority of the citizens of even those countries formally part of the ``coalition'';

Every major city in America has gone on record against this war;

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, almost every major Protestant denomination, the American Labor movement and the NAACP are against this war;

Leading retired U.S. military commanders such as General Zinni, and General Schwarzkopf--in his original unvarnished views--have voiced opposition to this war;

Numerous active duty generals have told reporters off the record of their concerns about a war against Iraq; and

General Scowcroft, who was also President George Herbert Walker Bush's National Security Advisory is against this war.

And all of this opposition has arisen even before the war has started--an unprecedented phenomenon in human history. In view of these facts, I ask whether it is just possible that there is something amiss with the President's premises with his logic, and with his rejection of further effort to resolve the issues peacefully.

I urge my colleague to reflect on these powerful facts and join me in pressing President Bush to find another way--to follow the path of peace. As the Bible teaches, ``Blessed are the Peacemakers.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle to remedy some problems in landmark legislation passed at the end of the last Congress, and signed into law by President Bush, to establish a Department of Homeland Security. The legislation we are offering today would strike seven extraneous special interest provisions inserted into the Homeland Security Act by Republican leadership in the bill's waning hours, provisions that are contrary to the bipartisan spirit in which the Homeland Security Act was conceived.

Since the days following September 11, 2001, when terrorists viciously took the lives of 3,000 of our friends, family and fellow Americans, I have advocated establishing a Department of Homeland Security to beat the terrorist threat. Senator Arlen Specter, and I initially proposed creating a new department in October 2001. Our measure was not just bipartisan. It was in fact intended to be nonpartisan.

Unfortunately, some partisan battles did ensue, primarily regarding longstanding civil service protections for homeland security workers, and I remain very concerned about the potential impact of these provisions. Nevertheless, the final bill was, for the most part, a critical, well-constructed piece of legislation that incorporated the majority of the provisions approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee, and which an overwhelming majority of the Senate embraced.

In some very specific ways, however, the bill was flawed. In the final stages of passing the bill, the Republican leadership hastily inserted several special interest provisions that had no place in this measure. Most of these provisions had never been in any version of the legislation before the Senate before they were presented in a take-it- or-leave-it package by Republicans, and several had not been considered by either chamber. The method and spirit in which these provisions found their way into what should have been a consensus piece of legislation was utterly objectionable and Senator Daschle and I made an effort to remove them at the time. That effort narrowly failed, but not before news of these special interest provisions had created great consternation for Democrats and the public, and even for some Republicans. Indeed, according to numerous published reports, the Republican leadership was able to muster the votes to preserve the provisions only after promising to revisit at least some of the most egregious additions during this session of Congress.

I believe that the seven extraneous provisions my legislation targets hurt the Homeland Security Act as it was finally passed by the Congress and signed by the President. And I believe that, by attaching these measures to what could have and should have been a common cause, the Republican leadership all but admitted that the provisions cannot withstand independent scrutiny. Following are the provisions my bill would strike.

First, perhaps the most egregious add-on to the Homeland Security Act

was a provision that dramatically alters the way certain vaccine preservatives are treated for liability purposes under the law. To quickly summarize this very complicated issue, children who are hurt by childhood vaccines generally may not go directly to court to hold vaccine manufacturers liable. Instead, they have to go first to what's called the Federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which offers compensation for some of these claims. Parents argued, however, that the bar on lawsuits didn't use to apply to claims regarding faulty vaccine additives.

These seemingly arcane legal distinctions were particularly important to a large number of parents of autistic children who have attributed their children's autism to thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that used to be in some childhood vaccines. These parents sued the manufacturers of both vaccines and thimerosal, and they had many lawsuits pending in the courts as of last Fall.

If you are wondering what any of this has to do with Homeland Security, you are doing exactly what we all did last November when in the waning days of debate on the Homeland Security bill, a provision addressing this issue appeared for the very first time in any version of the bill. That provision fundamentally altered the way vaccine additive claims would be treated from then on. With the swoop of a pen, the pending additive lawsuits against both vaccine and additive manufacturers were thrown out of court and, the provision's supporters alleged, sent into the compensation fund.

As I said last Fall, I don't know whether there is any relationship between thimerosal and autism. I also don't know whether these cases really should be resolved in court or through the compensation fund. But I do know that figuring out where and how to resolve these claims is a very contentious, complex and challenging task, and is just one part of addressing broader problems with the vaccine compensation system. For example, the vaccine compensation fund's viability may be affected by the addition of claims regarding these additives. I also know that it is an issue that the committees of jurisdiction had been struggling with for a long time and that they should have been left to resolve. And I certainly know that a last second addition to the Homeland Security Act was absolutely the wrong way to deal with this issue and the wrong bill to use to take so many injured parents' and children's legal rights away. Indeed, we know that even more now, as it has become clear that while the provision closed the courthouse door to autistic children, it apparently didn't open the compensation fund window as its supporters said it would--because it didn't make the changes to either the fund's statute of limitations or to governing tax code provisions that would be necessary to obtain access to the fund for these cases.

The bottom line is that this was a wrong and poorly conceived provision to put in the Homeland Security bill--something I thought even the Republican leadership acknowledged when they were forced to make promises to get rid of this provision in order to save their bill. We should scrap it now, and let the committee of jurisdiction undertake a careful review and, I hope, get it right this time.

My legislation would also strike from the Act a measure that requires the Transportation Security Oversight Board to ratify within 90 days emergency security regulations issued by the Transportation Security Agency. If the oversight board does not ratify the regulations, they would automatically lapse. Despite the TSA having decided that they are necessary, 90 days later, lacking the board's approval, they'd disappear.

This doesn't make any sense. In the current climate, shouldn't we be trying to find new ways to expedite and implement TSA rules, not always to disrupt and derail them? This provision is contrary to new procedures that the Senate passed in 2001 in the aviation security bill. Under that law, regulations go into effect and remain in effect unless they are affirmatively disapproved by the Board. I think that's a better system.

Another provision would extend liability protection to companies that provided passenger and baggage screening in airports on September 11.

But we in the Senate decided against extending such liability protection in at least two different contexts. First, the airline bailout bill limited the liability of the airlines, but not of the security screeners, due to ongoing concerns about their role leading up to September 11. Then, the conference report on the Transportation Security bill extended the liability limitations to others who might have been the target of lawsuits, such as aircraft manufacturers and airport operators, but again not to the baggage and passenger screeners.

Like that little mole you hit with the mallet in a whack-a-mole game, somehow this provision reappeared in the Homeland Security Act. We must strike it.

Another unnecessary and overreaching provision I seek to strike gives the Secretary of the new department broad authority to designate certain technologies as so-called ``qualified antiterrorism technologies.'' His granting of this designation, which appears to be unilateral, and probably not subject to review by anyone, would entitle companies selling that technology to broad liability protection from any claim arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism, no matter how negligently, or even wantonly and willfully, the company acted.

This provision seems to say that in many cases, the plaintiff can't recover anything from the seller unless an injured plaintiff can prove that the seller of the product that injured him or her acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to the Secretary when the Secretary was deciding whether to certify the product.

Even in cases where a seller isn't entitled to the benefit of that protection, the company still isn't fully, or in many cases even partially, responsible for its actions, even if it knew there was something terribly wrong with its product. Perhaps worst of all, this measure caps the seller's liability at the limits of its insurance policy. In other words, if injured people were lucky enough to get through the first hurdle and even hold a faulty seller liable, they still could go completely uncompensated even if a liable seller has more than enough money to compensate them.

The Homeland Security Act unwisely and unnecessarily allows the Secretary to exempt the new department's advisory committees from the open meetings requirements and other requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA.

Agencies throughout government make use of advisory committees that function under these open meetings requirements. Existing law is careful to protect discussions and documents that involve sensitive information, in fact, the FACA law currently applies successfully to the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the State Department, even the secretive National Security Agency.

So why should the Department of Homeland Security be allowed to exempt its advisory committees from its requirements? Why should its advisory committees be allowed to meet in total secret with no public knowledge?

We all say that we're for ``good government,'' for openness, integrity, and accountability. But as it now stands, few of us will be able to say with confidence that the new department's advisory committees are designed to be as independent, balanced, and transparent as possible. I know full well that the Homeland Security Department will deal with sensitive information involving life and death, but so does the National Security Agency. So does the FBI. So does the Department of Defense. Their advisory committees aren't allowed to hide themselves away from the public.

Finally, our legislation would alter a provision in the Act creating a university-based homeland security research center. Now, I have nothing against creating a university research center focused on homeland security.

But there's a problem with this particular provision as it is written. The research center that it would create is described so narrowly, through 15 specific criteria, that it appears Texas A&M University has the inside track, to say the least, to get the funding and house the center.

Science in this country has thrived over the years because, by and large,

Congress has refused to intervene in science decisions. Science has thrived through peer review and competition over the best proposals-- which are fundamentals of federal science policy. We are violating them here. This is nothing short of ``science pork.''

When it comes to making these research funding decisions, we need a playing field that's truly level, not one that only looks level when you tilt your head.

Our legislation keeps the university-based science center program. However, it removes the highly-specific criteria that appear to direct it to a particular university. That's the way we'll get the best science, not by making Congressional allocations to particular institutions.

I'm extremely pleased we have created a Department of Homeland Security and plan to do everything I can to help ensure its success. But these flaws are real. They are serious. And they are utterly unnecessary. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 104) expressing the support and appreciation of the Nation for the President and the members of the Armed Forces who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration pursuant to the following order:

Debate on the concurrent resolution shall be limited to 2 hours, equally divided and controlled by myself and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption, without intervening motion or demand for a division of the question.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I am aware that the other body passed a resolution?

Yes.

That is true.

If the gentleman will yield further, yes, we would be open to including it.

Mr. Speaker, I would retract that and tell the gentleman that I would not be open to that. Would the gentleman yield further?

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the gentleman that I read not only the resolution that was offered by the other body in 1991, but

also our resolution. We had a different resolution at that point, also.

I would just say to the gentleman that I think that the Members of this body have made a very fine statement, a very heartfelt statement commending our troops. I think it says the right thing. I applaud the gentleman for other things that he would like to see in a resolution. I think reasonable minds can differ.

I would hope that the gentleman would, in the spirit of bipartisan support for people that wear the uniform of the United States, not ask us to have precisely the same words as the other body, and simply spend a few minutes and go home. I would hope the gentleman would allow us to have our own resolution to express our own heartfelt support for those people, and let this body work its will.

No.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that we have some excellent commendations in this particular resolution.

Let me finish my statement, if I might.

We commend the President as Commander in Chief. That is something we did in 1991. Under the Constitution, he leads this military force. We commend the Members of the United States Armed Forces. We commend the families. We give them our sincere gratitude and appreciation.

I would think that any Member reading this resolution, and I would ask all Members to read it since the gentleman has called it into question, would agree that this resolution is an excellent resolution, and that it does all the things that we want to do. It would lead us all to wonder why the gentleman somehow wants it to say something else or follow some other example. It does not make a lot of sense.

I will look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman and to the gentleman who just spoke, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform putting themselves in very difficult positions for our freedom tonight. If they are watching this procedure, they are probably wondering, what in the heck are those guys doing? We have a commending vehicle.

I guess what I am saying is the answer is no to the gentleman from Ohio.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, first, that restates the President's letter.

Second, a second point I would make to the gentleman is that we have been working, Democrats and Republicans, to put this resolution together. My colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, has been working on it. The gentleman's leadership has been working on it. The product that we have before us is a product of both sides.

I would just say to the gentleman if he has a disagreement with it and he thinks that it does not state his position, I would urge the gentleman to take time in this debate in the next several hours and explain his position; but nonetheless, let the rest of us in this House work our will and give our commendation to the troops. Obviously, we would all write it differently.

I look forward to the gentleman's statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I rise today, this country is embarked on a very noble endeavor. Last evening, military forces of the United States and our coalition allies commenced military operations to liberate the country of Iraq.

This is indeed a historic moment. Operation Iraqi Freedom marks the culmination of nearly 13 years of U.S. action in Iraq. Commencing with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, through Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, through the coalition enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly zones, to Operation Desert Fox and beyond, the United States and our allies have for over a decade been required to deal with the deceit, brutality and duplicity of Saddam Hussein, both diplomatically and militarily.

Today Saddam's moment of truth has arrived. The path to his downfall began

when the Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, making it the policy of this Nation to support efforts to remove Saddam's regime from power and to promote a democratic government in Iraq. It continued last fall when Congress passed and President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 114 authorizing the use of military force in Iraq should it become necessary.

Since the passage of that resolution, President Bush has undertaken herculean efforts to avoid a conflict. The President aggressively pursued the unanimous passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, calling for Iraq to disarm or face grave consequences. Subsequently, the President has exhausted every diplomatic means available to make the United Nations Security Council enforce 1441 to no avail.

Today, the time for diplomacy has passed.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today does three things. First, it expresses the support and appreciation of our Nation to the President for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of the military operations currently underway in Iraq. It is because of his wisdom and judgment that Iraq will soon be a free Nation, a Nation without weapons of mass destruction, a Nation that will become a full and peaceful participant in the international community.

Second, this resolution expresses the support and appreciation of a Nation to our men and women in uniform. A few short weeks ago, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I brought forward H.J. Res. 27 commending the members of our Armed Forces and their families for the dedication to duty and service to country that they demonstrate each and every day around the world. Today we bring forward this resolution to show our support, admiration and thanks for the nearly 230,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen who are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Because of their dedication and devotion to duty, Operation Iraqi Freedom will be a success.

Finally, this resolution expresses support for the families who wait at home for their loved ones who have undertaken this mission. Without the love and support of the families, our military personnel could not focus on the serious task at hand in Iraq, and I want to express a special thanks to the families of those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their sacrifice will not be in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show our support for our men and women in uniform by supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my friend from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all the members of our Committee on Armed Services, Republican and Democrat, who work every day to support the people in uniform who are protecting American freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, this great instrument of freedom, our Armed Forces, have saved the world and liberated hundreds of millions of people in three major conflicts, World War I, World War II and, of course, the Cold War that involved several smaller wars, smaller battles, that I call Vietnam and Korea, and we have liberated hundreds of millions of people.

The real product of our Army and our Navy and our Marine Corps and our Air Force is freedom, and shortly we are going to be liberating 23 million more people, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in that great book about Korea, it was called the Bridges of Toko-Ri, by James Michener, if my colleagues have read that book, watched that movie, they may recall that the hero was a carrier pilot, flew out and hit a set of bridges in Toko-Ri that they had gone after day after day and lost a lot of people, and in the end that pilot did not come back. The commander of that carrier air group stood on the deck of the carrier when it was clear he would not return and neither would those people who were sent out to rescue him, and he asked, where does America get these people who will join the U.S. Armed Forces and put themselves in a very dangerous position, in this case go off on a mission, fly into enemy territory, hit a very heavily defended target and come back and try to find that little postage stamp called an American aircraft carrier? Then he answered his own question: They come from the cities and the towns and the villages of this country, and they always have, and as long as they continue to come, we are going to be a free Nation.

Mr. Speaker, one of those people comes from Shelbina, Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who was the top gun in Vietnam, nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a guy whose heart always travels with people that wear the uniform of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a guy who works every day on behalf of folks in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who was a fighter pilot in the Persian Gulf and in Vietnam.

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his great service to the Committee on Armed Services.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), another gentleman with great military expertise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a gentleman with great experience in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his great work on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was a distinguished Marine rifleman in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

(Mr. PEARCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), who has a son in the United States Navy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services, that I would hope that the gentleman would discourage Members like the Member who just spoke from using this time when we are supposed to be commending our troops from demeaning other Members of this House.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).