Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act

Mr. President, just over 10 months ago, we passed a bipartisan bill called the Medicare Modernization Act dealing more with the prescription drug issue than anything else. But regardless of what you want to call it, it is the most sweeping improvement in Medicare since its creation. The Medicare Modernization Act delivered on a promise, a promise to provide beneficiaries a much needed prescription drug benefit and to revitalize Medicare so beneficiaries can receive quality care and benefits into the future with no sunset.

The Medicare bill passed with the support of a bipartisan coalition and more than 300 organizations ranging from the AARP to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Advocacy groups that did not necessarily support the bill then went on to form an organization called the Access to Benefits Coalition. They worked after passage of the MMA to ensure that low-income beneficiaries enroll in the Medicare drug card and get the real assistance to which every senior is entitled.

Still, on the floor of the Senate, we hear partisan attacks against this Medicare bill, continuing yet 10 months since it was signed into law. This is much to the consternation of organizations such as the Access to Benefits Coalition, which is saying that partisanship ought to be set aside and we ought to concentrate on getting people into the benefits that are in the program, even if you don't necessarily agree with the legislation.

Week after week, month after month, we have heard attack after attack against this Medicare bill. This is despite the fact that study after study shows the drug card program, for example--and that is only a small part of this most comprehensive improvement in Medicare in its 38-year history--is delivering real savings to beneficiaries.

As I listen to these attacks, I am reminded that it is always easier to tear down than to build. But if you tear something down, it seems to me those tearing it down ought to have something to replace it. So what was their plan? I haven't heard about a plan for the future, so I have to look back. What were they suggesting at that time when they had an alternative plan? And this was when the Democratic Party controlled the Senate. They did have a plan to offer, but the Democratic leader bypassed the Finance Committee, where we developed bipartisanship, to bring their proposal to the floor because they didn't want a bipartisan program. They wanted their own program. They knew they couldn't get their own program. They wanted an issue for the 2002 election rather than a product.

This alternative was drafted by Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy. Their bill was S. 2625. It had 30 Democratic cosponsors, including the Democratic leader. They offered two proposals as amendments on the Senate floor. Fifty Democrats voted in favor of the first proposal. Forty-five Democrats supported the second, which, I might add, was worse than the first. The Democratic Leader as well as Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry supported both of these Democratic proposals.

In stark contrast with the bill that the President signed last December, the Democratic proposal, Graham-Kennedy, had a drug benefit that was not permanent. Our legislation is permanent. That is right. Their proposal would have ended at about the time baby boomers were beginning to retire. What a promise: Prescription drugs, and in 2010 you have nothing.

Chart No. 1 has the language of one section of their legislation. I read:

No obligations shall be incurred, no amounts shall be

appropriated, and no amounts expended, for expenses incurred

for providing coverage of covered outpatient drugs after

December 31, 2010.

You can't be clearer than that. Seniors and individuals with disabilities deserve better than the false hopes of a drug benefit that expires after 6 years. But that is exactly what the first Graham- Kennedy amendment did. It simply rode off into the sunset after 2010, just at the very time that 77 million baby boomers start to retire. The fact that the Graham-Kennedy proposal offered a drug benefit that ended 6 years after it started ought to be unbelievable. You would never think that Senators would think of doing something like that--false promises, a costly program for a few years, and then it ends. But they sunset the benefit to hide the true cost of their proposal. At the time the Congressional Budget Office said it would cost over $100 billion each year to extend the Graham-Kennedy drug benefit past the sunset, $100 billion a year, and they had no plan to pay for this enormous cost.

To make their drug benefit permanent, Congress would have had to cut all other Government programs by more than 10 percent or increase taxes on all working Americans by an amount equal to 2 percent or greater. That is the same as a tax increase of around $1,500.

Besides vanishing in 2010, under the first Graham-Kennedy amendment, the Government could limit beneficiaries to just a single one-size- fits-all plan. The Secretary of Health and Human Services could have simply decided that you could get your coverage through that one plan-- period, no choice.

Even more amazing, the first Graham-Kennedy amendment proposed a drug benefit that could only cover up to two brand name drugs in any therapeutic category. What does that mean? It means if your doctor prescribed a different brand name drug and it is not on the preferred list, then you don't get the plan to pay for it.

I will give you some examples. Let's take high cholesterol. There are more than eight well-known brand drugs to lower cholesterol. The single Government plan under Graham-Kennedy could pick Lescol. Say your doctor prescribes Mevacor. Well, you would get no coverage at all. This scenario could have been repeated for arthritis, high blood pressure, any other chronic condition that many beneficiaries have. Does that sound like a plan that is incredibly fair? No. Well, that is the plan, and it is far more restrictive than what the private plans offer today. Certainly the new Medicare law has no such requirement.

The first Graham-Kennedy amendment also set co-payment amounts in law--$10 for generics, $40 for brand drugs. To offer a lower copayment, the plan again had to ask for the Secretary's approval, a bureaucrat in the seniors' medicine cabinets for sure, not something that you are going to see under the bill that the President signed last December.

In addition, just like thousands of drugs could have been shut out, Graham-Kennedy could have shut out thousands of pharmacies because it told the Government to set up a preferred pharmacy network under that one Government plan, and the Secretary had to establish the pharmacy access standards. In contrast, the bill the President signed set strict rules about pharmacy access to make sure that plans include beneficiaries' neighborhood pharmacies in their networks.

So under their plan, there was one choice, with one formulary and one pharmacy network that may or may not cover the drugs beneficiaries need or allow them to use a pharmacy they want. Take it or leave it.

Under Graham-Kennedy, that outcome was the strong possibility facing beneficiaries who have waited long enough for a prescription drug benefit. The MMA established a good program that the President signed last December.

When I think about the Graham-Kennedy prescription for drug coverage, I cannot help but think of those little warning labels that you sometimes find on the side of your prescription bottle. In this case, it should have said this: Warning. This Graham-Kennedy plan may not help you at all because if you take a non-preferred drug, it won't be covered. You will only be guaranteed ``reasonable'' access to a pharmacy, and the Government will determine what is reasonable. Worst of all, if you need drug coverage after December 31, 2010, there won't be any plan for you or for anybody else.

Again, 50 Democrats, including Senator Kerry, supported this.

When that amendment failed, Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy came up with an alternative which, hard to believe, was worse. Most seniors would not have even gotten a basic prescription drug benefit under the second Graham-Kennedy plan because it wasn't a universal benefit. And we have a universal benefit signed by the President of the United States.

So that's right, under the Democratic plan, the proposal did not offer a basic drug benefit to 70 percent of the seniors who had incomes above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level at that time.

Seniors across the country would have been left behind. Let me show you. In my State of Iowa--and I am saying this to Iowans if the plan passed by the President doesn't fit just right, it is voluntary, so if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. But under the proposal offered the year before by the Democrats, 64 percent of the people in my State would not have had any basic program whatsoever; 67 percent left behind in Arizona; 72 percent left behind in Washington; and 70 percent left behind in Colorado.

The second Graham-Kennedy amendment violated a fundamental tenet of Medicare--and that is a tenet of the legislation we passed--that it be universal. They called for disqualifying any beneficiary who earned $1--just $1--more than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. So $1 was the difference between eligibility and ineligibility for this basic coverage.

Under the bill that the President signed, all Medicare beneficiaries are eligible to participate on a voluntary basis in the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

There is also a big gap in coverage. We also have been hearing from opponents of the bipartisan bill that passed the Congress and was signed by the President, about the gap in coverage. They refer to it as the donut hole.

Again, looking at their second attempt--we have it here. After looking at this plan that was put forth, my only conclusion is that this concern about a gap is newly found because most beneficiaries would not have received any basic coverage under their plan. To qualify for catastrophic coverage, a beneficiary would have to pay $3,300 out of pocket.

Talk about a hole. The majority of beneficiaries would not even get a donut.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 66 percent of seniors would not meet their catastrophic coverage threshold in 2005.

For a beneficiary who would meet the threshold, and based on average spending, it would take about 10 \1/2\ months--sometime around Thanksgiving Day--to get any help under the catastrophic benefit.

You know that what most beneficiaries got under the second Graham- Kennedy plan is a 5-percent discount off of their drug costs until they spent $3,300. And they proposed setting the 5 percent discount in law.

I might add that 5 percent is much less than discounts available under the Medicare-Approved Drug Discount Card Program.

Study after study is showing higher discounts. A recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showed discounts of 12 to 21 percent, and in many instances, even more. Competition among the card sponsors is leading to higher discounts for beneficiaries.

So much for the idea that direct Government involvement rather than market competition would get beneficiaries a better deal.

That is not the end. On top of all this, the last version of Graham- Kennedy did not even really offer a Medicare drug benefit because states would have administered it under their Medicaid programs.

An analysis conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at that time showed that many States would have had to shoulder a sizable new financial burden if the Graham-Kennedy plan passed--a $70 billion unfunded mandate.

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia were among the hardest hit States.

At a time when States were already struggling, the second Graham- Kennedy approach would have left them with few other avenues except raising taxes to implement the drug benefit.

So while the opponents of the new Medicare drug benefit have been here on this Senate floor yelling sometimes at the top of their lungs about it, this was their plan, which was supported by 45 Democrats including the Democratic leader and Senator Kerry.

In addition, the second Graham-Kennedy plan--as well as the first-- did nothing to strengthen and improve the Medicare program.

The Medicare bill we passed last year added new coverage choices and benefits. It addressed provider payments issues to make sure that beneficiaries have access to physicians and hospitals because otherwise a prescription drug benefit--or any benefit for that matter--would be meaningless.

So I think we can clearly see that the Graham-Kennedy proposals were bad medicine.

Mr. President, as I said, it is one thing to tear something down when you have a better plan. But, as you can see, this was their plan.

Their first plan offered a drug benefit that was not a permanent part of Medicare and it had limited drug coverage, a one-size-fits-all benefit--take it or leave it. Their next plan didn't give 70 percent of seniors even basic coverage, it had a huge gap in benefits, and a Medicare low income benefit that wasn't even run by Medicare.

To me, that was unacceptable in 2002 and it's unacceptable today. Instead, last year a bipartisan coalition worked to give beneficiaries a meaningful and permanent Medicare prescription drug benefit and a revitalized Medicare program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds.

Madam President, just to remind the Senator from Massachusetts, I was chairman of the committee during this period of time for 4 months--from January until May of 2001. The Democratic Party chaired this committee from June of 2001 through all of the debate on the Medicare issue. I was not in charge of that committee at that time.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords today in introducing the High-Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation will reenergize the Federal Government's commitment to building design and construction into the 21st Century.

Buildings have an enormous impact on environmental quality, on energy

use, and on natural resource consumption. The statistics are staggering. Buildings devour 37 percent of the energy used in this country, including 68 percent of electricity. They are responsible for 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change. And they account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and generate 40 percent of the Nation's non-industrial waste stream. Moreover, building construction and demolition produce 136 million tons of waste in this country, and use 12 percent of potable water in the U.S. Mr. President, for too long these prodigious effects have gone unrecognized.

The impacts are even more far reaching than that. Since Americans spend an average of 90 percent of their time indoors, buildings have a considerable influence on public health. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, indoor air pollution concentrations may be two to five times, and in some cases 100 times, higher than in outdoor air. EPA scientists estimates that about 20,000 deaths occur related to indoor levels of radon, and that 3000 lung cancer deaths occur among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke each year.

Experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that an additional 35,000 coronary disease deaths occur each year in this country among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke. These losses do not include exposure to toxic pollutants emitted from building materials, such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and pressed- wood products, which many researchers believe to be significant. We must confront these environmental and public health challenges and to do so we need a vision for the future. Our legislation offers that vision.

High-performance green buildings are designed and constructed in ways that significantly reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment, on energy use, and on resource consumption. They are also designed to reduce or eliminate harmful pressures on the health and productivity of building occupants. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, a national nonprofit organization, green design and construction practices are directed at five broad areas: 1. Sustainable site planning; 2. Safeguarding water and water efficiency; 3. Energy efficiency and renewable energy; 4. Conservation of materials and resources; and 5. Indoor environmental quality.

Green buildings have many benefits, and while the initial investment may be higher (although not necessarily) than for a traditional buildings, they significantly lower long-term costs for things such as heating and cooling. Since new government buildings are intended to be used for a long period of time--at least 50 years--it is easier to justify any initial higher investment costs. By improving working conditions and increasing daylighting, case studies have shown that green buildings improve occupant productivity and reduce employee absenteeism. This legislation would provide for research to capture and measure those impacts and incorporate the lessons learned into future construction.

The High-Performance Green Building Act focuses Federal Government efforts to promote the environmental, energy, health, and economic benefits that can be realized from green buildings. This legislation incorporates the findings of two reports that make recommendations for improving the Federal Government's role in relation to high-performance green buildings. The first report, ``Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings,'' was prepared by the U.S. Green Building Council and the second report, ``The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations,'' was released by the President's Office of the Federal Environmental Executive.

Our legislation changes the way the Federal Government manages its thousands of buildings. The bill establishes an Office of High- Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration, GSA, which is the logical place for this office since this agency is the Federal Government's primary landlord. GSA manages over 8,700 buildings owned or leased by the United States. The new office will promote public outreach, coordinate and focus research and development, and improve life-cycle analysis and budgeting for building construction. This title also creates an Interagency Steering Committee to improve coordination across Federal agencies, and with state and local governments.

This bill would expand the role of EPA in supporting healthier buildings at the nation's schools. Schools can serve as the vanguard for the effort to protect our children's health and the environment, so this title authorizes the Agency to administer grants to state and local education agencies to support implementation of EPA's effective Tools for Schools Program. It also authorizes the Agency to develop Federal guidelines for school location siting that take into account the special vulnerabilities of children to the contamination of land and water.

This legislation would incorporate building life-cycle costing as a tool to achieve more efficient and economical long-term investments in government buildings, by requiring the Comptroller General to review the annual Federal budget process and submit a plan to reach these goals to Congress.

In closing, investing in green buildings is good public policy for a variety of reasons. Our bill will allow the Federal Government to take a leadership role in promoting green buildings. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren to protect and conserve the planet's resources and to safeguard public health. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senators Durbin, Levin and Reid, with Congressman DeFazio in the House, to bring fairness to the oil markets and do something to reverse the recent spikes in gas prices.

Our legislation will force the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to initiate World Trade Organization (WTO) proceedings against OPEC nations. Under WTO rules, countries are not permitted to maintain export quotas. But OPEC nations actually collude to set such quotas.

OPEC is an illegal cartel, plain and simple. We've allowed this cartel to operate for too long--it's time to put an end to it.

The American people are feeling the effects of the OPEC cartel every day at the gas pumps. Many families are already struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages and the rising costs of health care. High gas prices have only made matters worse.

When President Bush took office, a gallon of gas cost $1.47. Today, a gallon of gas averages $1.90. For someone who buys one tank of gas a week, that increase costs $350 per year.

All this adds up. Oil imports now account for $125 billion annually, or one-quarter of America's trade deficit. That money could be invested here at home to create American jobs, but instead we are being gouged by oil exporters.

While Americans suffer, President Bush has done nothing to bring down gas prices. He says he will talk to his Saudi friends in the oil business. But talk is cheap. The American people want action. This bill today is an opportunity for action.

I have also released a report today, explaining the basis for a WTO complaint against OPEC.

In some ways, the allegations are simple and straightforward: OPEC manipulates world oil markets by imposing export quotas on oil. These quotas keep the price of oil artificially high.

Without OPEC, market analysts have estimated that the free market price of a barrel of oil would be around 10 to 15 dollars lower than today's price. That would make a difference in gas prices of 20 to 45 cents per gallon, saving American families hundreds of dollars per year. There is no reason to continue to tolerate OPEC's anti- competitive behavior.

Collusion to put quotas on oil exports--or any exports--is illegal under WTO rules. For example, the WTO has found that a treaty between the United States and Japan limiting semiconductor exports violated WTO rules.

The Bush administration has been lax in dealing with OPEC. In my view, President Bush's ties to the Saudis and to big oil companies prevent him from sticking up for the American consumer.

Indeed, while the squeeze was being put on American consumers, oil companies and refineries reported record profits in the first quarter of this year for operations in the United States. Earnings for U.S. domestic refining and marketing operations increased by 294 percent for Chevron-Texaco, 165 percent for BP, 125 percent for ExxonMobil, and 44 percent for Conoco-Phillips over last year's levels.

So while OPEC and their oil company allies have seen a boom, American families have seen a bust. In fact, for those middle-income Americans who will see any benefit at all from the recent tax cuts, rising gas prices alone will eat up half of those cuts.

Since the Bush administration has failed to live up to its responsibilities, it's time for the Congress to stand up for the American people and force it to take action against OPEC.

I urge support of this common-sense legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl and Lugar to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours.

As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) modified the SSI program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrate to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the seven-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits.

Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than seven years because applicants are required to live in the United States for a minimum of five years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes three or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits.

If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next four years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits because their seven-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate.

I would like to share the story of Yelena, a victim of religious persecution in the former Soviet Union who sought refuge in the United States seven years ago and is currently living in Portland, Oregon. At the age of 82, Yelena relies on SSI and other public benefits programs to buy food and pay her monthly bills. Yelena is now stuck in a multi- year backlog waiting for her green card, the first step toward citizenship. She was raised in a small village in the Soviet Union where she had little access to formal education and never learned English. She has struggled to grasp the language since arriving in the US and as a result, her seven-year anniversary arrived before she was able to naturalize. Yelena is now without her SSI benefits and still fighting to become a citizen. We must help Yelena and others like her.

The Administration in its fiscal year 2005 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding in its budget to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the seven-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional two years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a two- year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process.

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children.

Friends of the Children is a promising early intervention program established in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. The program identifies the most disadvantaged children at the kindergarten or first grade level and matches those children with ``professional mentors'' (also known as ``Friends''). Once matched, professional mentors work with children for a period of up to 12 years.

Started over a decade ago with just three Friends serving as mentors to 24 children, Friends of the Children has grown to serve over 600 children in 11 communities throughout the United States. The mission of Friends of the Children is to help our Nation's most disadvantaged children to develop the relationships, goals, and skills necessary to break the cycles of poverty, abuse, and violence in order to become a contributing member of society.

Extensive research has shown that the single most important factor that fosters resiliency in children is having a long-term relationship with a caring, supportive adult. Friends of the Children is a unique program that provides just such a relationship for disadvantaged children.

In 1993, Friends of the Children welcomed T.R., a first grader, into the Portland program. At home, T.R. was routinely exposed to drug use, gang activity, and violence. Through the program, T.R. was matched with his mentor, Jerrell, to help maintain a support system in T.R.'s life. Jerrell tutors, counsels, advises and is a companion to T.R. whether it is discussing T.R.'s plans for the future or dealing with his family relationships. Without the help of someone like Jerrell, T.R. believes that he would probably have dropped out of school or joined a gang. Now, T.R. is giving back to his community by working for Self Enhancement, Inc., an organization that teaches leadership skills to middle school students. T.R. has overcome great adversity to mature into a responsible young adult. T.R. aspires to pursue a career in business and would like to run his own company one day.

Last week, T.R. became one of the first students to graduate from the Friends of the Children program. Along with his classmates, T.R. was identified by the program over a decade ago. He was part of a group of children identified as the most in danger of abuse, neglect, juvenile delinquency, gang and drug involvement, school failure, and teenage pregnancy. Today, these children have grown into young adults. They have positive values and show great potential to become healthy, productive members of their communities.

``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood intervention programs. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites including ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth programs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federal Employee's Protection of Disclosures Act. Last year I introduced similar legislation, S. 1358, to amend employee safeguards for disclosing government waste, fraud, and abuse with the support of Senators Grassley, Levin, Leahy, Durbin, Dayton, Pryor, Johnson, and Lautenberg.

Today, I am pleased that we can introduce a strong bipartisan version of this legislation with the additional support of Senators Collins, Lieberman, Fitzgerald, and Voinovich. Thanks to the work of the bill's cosponsors, we have developed legislation that strikes the right balance between the protection of Federal whistleblowers and our national security.

As my colleagues know, the events of September 11, 2001, have brought renewed attention to the security lapses at our Nation's airports, nuclear facilities, borders, and law enforcement agencies. However, in many cases, the current whistleblower system fails to protect those who would disclose information that could ensure the safety and welfare of the American people. As of May 2004, Federal whistleblowers have prevailed on the merits of their claims before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals only once since 1994. This record sends the wrong message. How can we expect civil servants to protect and defend the United States when we permit agencies to retaliate against them for doing their job?

I know the Department of Justice (DOJ) has objected to previous legislation concerning this problem. This comes as no surprise as the Department has an institutional conflict of interest with restoring whistleblower rights as it is charged with defending agencies charged with retaliating against the whistleblower. Nonetheless, I have worked with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee to address some the concerns raised by the Justice Department while still protecting federal employees.

One of the most significant changes in the bill relates to the protection of employees who find their security clearances stripped as a means of retaliation for blowing the whistle. Current law does not permit the whistleblower to have his or her case heard by an independent adjudicator when this type of retaliation occurs.

Under our bill, the whistleblower would be able to bring a case before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on an expedited basis when the employing agency revokes, suspends, denies, or makes another determination in relation to an employee's security clearance or access to classified materials. However, the employing agency need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the action against the employee irrespective the whistleblower's disclosure. By lowering the burden of proof for the employing agency from clear and convincing, as is the standard with other whistleblower cases, to preponderance of the evidence, our legislation strikes a balance between having an open and transparent process for whistleblowers and the need to make security clearance or access determinations in the interests of national security.

The Department of Justice was also concerned with a provision in the prior bill, S. 1358, which granted independent litigating authority to the Special Counsel. In testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee last November, the Department claimed that extending this authority to the Special Counsel would usurp DOJ's traditional unifying role as the Executive Branch's representative in court. The Department also claimed that the provision would undermine a number of important policy goals, including the presentation of uniform positions on significant legal issues and the objective litigation of cases by attorneys unaffected by concerns of a single agency that may be inimical to the interests of the Government as a whole.

However, many agencies have independent litigating authority, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the MSPB, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Moreover, interagency disputes are not unique. It is inappropriate for the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency charged with protecting the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), to seek approval from DOJ, the agency charged with protecting agencies alleged to have retaliated against whistleblowers, in order to carry out its mission. Nonetheless, our bill would not provide the Special Counsel with independent litigating authority but rather provide it with independent authority to file amicus briefs with federal courts. This authority will allow the Special Counsel to protect the WPA while addressing concerns raised by the Justice Department.

In addition, our compromise measure would still provide protection to whistleblowers subject to retaliatory investigations, but not for routine or non-discretionary investigations of the employee and codify the definition of reasonable belief an employee must have in order to determine when an employee has made a protected disclosure. I am pleased that our new bill, among other things, retains language restoring congressional intent regarding the definition of a protected disclosure, codifying the anti-gag provision that has been in every appropriations law since 1988, and establishing a more reasonable test for determining government mismanagement instead of irrefragable proof. According to the Federal Circuit, in order to determine that the federal government has engaged in gross mismanagement, the whistleblower must have irrefragable proof, meaning proof impossible to refute.

The bill also retains language, subject to a five-year sunset, providing whistleblowers the opportunity to have their cases heard by federal courts other than the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. These provisions are necessary to facilitate disclosures of government mismanagement in order for Congress to do its job and make informed decisions when carrying out its legislative, appropriation, and oversight functions for the protection the American people.

Our government is responsible for services and programs that touch all

Americans. The Federal employees who carry out these responsibilities on behalf of the American people must be able to communicate with Congress without fear of losing their jobs when reporting threats to public health and safety and government mismanagement. We must have a credible and functioning WPA. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill and ensure real protection for Federal whistleblowers.

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

Madam President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I have great affection and respect for the chairman of the Finance Committee, but I just listened to distortion and misrepresentations on the legislation that I cosponsored with my good friend from Florida. The fact is, every senior group in the United States of America supported our proposal, and they cannot say the same about the Republican proposal.

Why in the world would all the senior groups support our proposal? Because we build on the solemn commitment that was made to the seniors in this country in 1964 and 1965. Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill in 1965, where we guaranteed to every senior citizen good quality health care for the rest of their lives if they paid into the system and played by the rules. We guaranteed hospital care and care by physicians, but we never did it for prescription drugs.

That was the commitment that was made by this Government to the seniors of this Nation. This was a downpayment to meet the commitment Lyndon Johnson made and that every one of us who supported the Medicare Program believes in.

Every day that we fail to provide a real prescription drug program to the seniors is a violation of that commitment. The other side ought to be telling us how we are going to finish that commitment and close the gap for our senior citizens, rather than fly-specking other legislation that has been introduced, which did not have massive giveaways to the HMOs and massive giveaways to the drug companies.

President Bush's Medicare bill is a travesty. That is why it is not being endorsed by the senior citizens of this country.

It is astounding that Republicans think they can defend President Bush's good-for-nothing Medicare bill by attacking the Graham-Miller- Kennedy bill offered more than two years ago. Is especially astounding because that bill--which received a majority of votes in the United States Senate but was blocked by the Republican minority--was so much better than the Bush bill that Republicans passed last year.

Let's look at the record. Our bill provided $600 billion for prescription drugs for senior citizens, not the $400 billion in the Bush bill. The Bush priorities are tax cuts for the wealthy. Our priorities are health care for senior citizens.

Under our bill, every dime of the $600 billion went for prescription drugs. Under the Bush bill, $139 billion is squandered on windfall profits for the drug companies and $46 billion on giveaways to HMOs.

Under our bill, senior citizens got a real benefit, not one as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. Under our bill, senior citizens started receiving benefits on the first prescription they fill. Under the Bush bill, seniors have to pay a $250 deductible before they see a dime's worth of benefits.

Under our bill, seniors citizens had complete coverage. No doughnut holes. No big coverage gaps where seniors must pay the full cost of the drugs they need--or go without. Their bill has a huge coverage gap of almost $3,000. Once a senior has purchased $2,250 worth of drugs, they get no benefits until they spend an additional $2,850. What kind of insurance is that!

Under our bill, senior citizens paid a $25 a month premium for their coverage--and it was guaranteed. Under the Bush bill, the average premium senior citizens would have to pay was estimated at $35--but if insurance companies decided to charge more, it could be $40 or $50 or $60 or $90. There was no guarantee and no limits.

Under our bill, seniors were guaranteed access to any drug they needed--even if it was not on the formulary. Under the Bush bill, if an insurance company decides not to cover a drug the senior citizens needs, the senior citizen is out of luck.

The bottom line is that under the Bush bill, 15 million senior citizens actually will pay more for the drugs they need than they do today. Six million of the poorest of the poor on Medicaid will be forced to pay more out of pocket. Six million more senior citizens will pay more in premiums than they will get in benefits. Three million seniors will lose the good retirement coverage they now enjoy from a former employer and be forced into the inadequate government program the bill creates. Under the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, every senior citizen is better off. That is one key reason why every legitimate organization of senior citizens endorsed the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, and why the vast majority of senior citizen organizations opposed the Bush bill.

President Bush says in every stump speech that we have a ``moral obligation to honor our senior citizens.'' He is right about that, but it is typical Bush. Right words, wrong deeds. It is wrong to make 15 million senior citizens worse off with his good-for-nothing Medicare bill. It is wrong to impose the highest premium increase in Medicare's entire history on senior citizens. It is wrong to escalate premiums a whopping 72 percent in just 2 years, so that the average senior--with an income of just $15,000--has to pay almost $1,000 in Medicare premiums. It is wrong to tolerate a situation under which, according to the Bush Administration's own estimates, the average 85-year-old will spend more than 40 percent of her Social Security benefits on Medicare premiums and cost-sharing by 2006. It is wrong to give away money to drug companies and HMOs that belongs to senior citizens. It is wrong to try to privatize Medicare and force senior citizens to join HMOs.

George Bush has had 4 years to help senior citizens get the affordable health care Medicare promises. He has failed. Now he wants another chance. He doesn't deserve it.

John Kerry and Democrats in Congress have a better approach. We will repeal and replace the good-for-nothing Bush Medicare bill. We will fight for senior citizens. We will put their interests first, not the interests of big drug companies and HMOs. We will honor our senior citizens with deeds, not just words.

I yield the floor.

I withhold that.

I yield back my time.