A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to expand reimbursement for travel expenses of covered beneficiaries for specialty care in order to cover specialized dental care.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 333, the Elder Justice Act. Despite the rapid aging of America, few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

This abuse of our seniors takes many forms. It can be physical, sexual, psychological, or financial. The perpetrator may be a stranger, an acquaintance, a paid caregiver, a corporation and, far too often, a spouse or another family member. Elder abuse happens everywhere--in poor, middle-class and upper income households; in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. It knows no demographic or geographic boundaries.

The cost of such abuse and neglect is high by any measure. The price of this abuse is paid in needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, depleted public resources, and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of our elders.

With scientific advances and the graying of millions of baby boomers, this year the number of elderly on the planet passed the number of children for the first time. Although we have made great strides in promoting independence, productivity, and quality of life, old age still brings inadequate health care, isolation, impoverishment, abuse, and neglect for far too many Americans.

Studies conclude that elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation are widely under reported and these abuses significantly shorten the lives of older victims. A single episode of mistreatment can tip over an otherwise independent, productive life, triggering a downward spiral that can result in depression, serious illness, and even death.

Too many of our frailest citizens suffer needlessly and cannot simply move away from the abuse. Frequently, they cannot express their wishes or suffering. And, even if they can, often they do not, fearing retaliation.

Congress has passed comprehensive bills to address the ugly truth of two other types of abuse--child abuse and crimes against women. These bills placed these two issues into the national consciousness and addressed the issues at a national level.

The law created new Federal infrastructure and funding--focusing resources, creating accountability, and changing how we think about and treat abuse of women and children. And most

jurisdictions now have established coordinated social service-public heath-law enforcement approaches to confront these abuses.

But despite dozens of congressional hearings over the past two decades on the devastating effects of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, interest in the subject has waxed and waned, and, to date, no Federal law has been enacted to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. In these hearings, elder abuse was called a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Indeed, we found no single Federal employee working full time on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government.

The time has come for Congress to provide seniors a set of fundamental protections. That is why, along with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Collins, Smith of Oregon, Lincoln, Bond, Nelson of Florida, Burns, Rockefeller, Santorum, Landrieu, Jeffords, Harkin, Miller, Stabenow, and Kohl, I am introducing a bill, the Elder Justice Act, the first comprehensive Federal effort to address elder abuse in the United States.

Our bill will elevate elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation to the national stage in a lasting way. We want to ensure Federal leadership to provide resources for services, prevention, and enforcement efforts to those on the front lines.

A crime is a crime whoever the victim and wherever it occurs. Crimes against seniors must be elevated to the level of child abuse and crimes against women.

It is clear in confronting child abuse and violence against women that the best methods of prevention is two-pronged--through both law enforcement and social services. With offices in the Departments of Health and Human Services and Justice, this legislation ensures a combined public health-law enforcement coordination at all levels. In addition, because elder abuse and neglect have been virtually absent from the national research agenda, this bill establishes research centers of excellence, and funds research projects to fuel future legislation.

These measures lay the foundation to address, in a meaningful and lasting way, a devastating and growing problem that has been invisible for far too long. We can no longer neglect these difficult issues afflicting frail and elderly victims.

This effort takes numerous steps to prevent and treat elder abuse:

It improves prevention and intervention by funding projects to make older Americans safer in their homes, facilities, and neighborhoods, to enhance long-term care staffing and to stop financial fraud before the money goes out the door.

It enhances detection by creating forensic centers and developing expertise to enhance detection of the problem.

It bolsters treatment by funding efforts to find better ways to mitigate the devastating consequences of elder mistreatment.

It increases collaboration by requiring ongoing coordination at the federal level, among Federal, State, local and private entities, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families.

It aids prosecution by assisting law enforcement and prosecutors to ensure that those who abuse our Nation's frail elderly will be held accountable, wherever the crime occurs and whoever the victim.

It helps consumers by creating a resource center for family caregivers and those trying to make decisions about different types of long-term care providers.

The importance of defending our right to live free of suffering from abuse and neglect does not diminish with age. If we can unlock the mysteries of science to live longer, what do we gain if we fail to ensure Americans live longer with dignity?

More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest citizens.

I appreciate the work of my fellow members and a wide array of groups on behalf of elder justice and look forward to continued support from both sides of the aisle and in both houses to make elder justice a reality for those Americans who need it most.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safe and Secure Skies Act of 2003, a bill that would protect the safety and security of the flying public by requiring that air traffic control remain a government function. This legislation is necessary because the Bush administration has taken several steps to privatize our Nation's air traffic control system.

On September 11 air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically, as they guided thousands of aircraft out of the sky. From the tower at Newark International Airport, air traffic controllers in my State could see the Twin Towers burning as they worked to return tens of thousands of Americans to the ground safely.

Like many public servants on that day, they are heroes. Along with police, firefighters, and other emergency personnel, these public employees gave 110 percent to secure the safety of the American people.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, the American people demanded one thing in particular of their government: they wanted government personnel--not private contract firms--to perform security screening of baggage at our Nation's airports. And Congress compiled with this request, as we turned the privatized baggage screening system over to Federal workers with the new Transportation Security Agency.

That is why it is so surprising to me that the administration is now taking steps to privatize the air traffic control system in this country. It makes little sense, especially after September 11. It is the opposite of what the public wants.

The safety and security of the American people should not be the responsibility of the lowest bidder. Rather, it is a core responsibility of government.

But the administration is moving rapidly in the opposite direction. Already we have seen the jobs of air traffic control specialists--those who repair, inspect, and maintain the air traffic control system-- opened up to outsourcing. And the administration just completed a ``feasibility study'' of privatizing the jobs of flight service station controllers--the experts who provide critical weather, safety, and security alerts to pilots.

Next on the agenda for the administration are the air traffic controllers, who monitor and guide thousands of aircraft every day over the United States.

The administration has already proposed air traffic controller privatization in two of its annual budgets. In

June 2002, President Bush issued an executive order stripping air traffic services of its ``inherently governmental'' status. And in December 2002, the administration issued a document designating air traffic control a ``commercial'' activity, opening the door to contracting out the jobs of air traffic controllers to the lowest bidder.

This change from ``inherently governmental'' to a ``commercial'' function is more than a technical change--``inherently governmental'' functions can never be privatized, while ``commercial'' functions may be outsourced.

The administration is trying to accomplish its privatization plan under the public's radar screen through the Office of Management and Budget's A-76 process. We in Congress have the power to stop this process and the bill I am introducing today will reverse the administration's plan.

My Safe and Secure Skies Act will return air traffic control functions to ``inherently governmental'' status, thus barring any privatization action. I do want to note, however, that my legislation will not affect the existing FAA ``Contract Tower'' program, which involves some small, visual flight rules airports.

We currently have the best air traffic control system in the world. Over 15,000 dedicated Federal air traffic controllers guide more than 2 million passengers a day home safely. Maintaining and inspecting the system are over 11,000 air traffic specialists, and nearly 3,000 flight service station controllers provide critical information and alerts to pilots. They are expert professionals who perform under pressure every day to keep our skies safe.

I believe our air traffic controllers are almost a wing of the military, and they play a major role in homeland security. When President Bush gave the State of the Union speech last month, it was the flight service station air traffic controllers who sent alerts to avoid the expanded ``no-fly'' zone around Washington. And when the space shuttle Columbia tragically disintegrated in the skies over Texas, it was the air traffic controllers who directed aircraft away from the falling debris field.

These men and women perform a critical government function.

Some claim that privatization will save money. But when you look at other countries' experiments with air traffic control privatization, all you see are financial messes and safety hazards. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have privatized systems that are now in crisis. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down.

Since Great Britain adopted privatization, near misses have increased by 50 percent and delays have increased by 20 percent. The British Government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice.

Privatization of the air traffic control system is bad fiscal policy, bad safety policy, bad homeland security policy, and the public doesn't want it.

I therefore ask my colleagues to support my Safe and Secure Skies Act, which will declare these critical air traffic control functions to be ``inherently governmental'', and therefore not eligible for outsourcing.

The safety of our skies should not be put in the hands of the lowest bidder.

Mr. President, our Nation continues to mourn the terrible tragedy that we all experienced on Saturday with the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The loss of these seven brave men and women proved that space flight is still dangerous. Unfortunately, I come to the floor today to call my colleagues' attention to another tragedy, one which Congress can and should correct.

After the 1986 Challenger explosion, a terrible oversight on the part of our government came to light. We learned that NASA astronauts, with the exception of those in the military, often cannot get life insurance. Their jobs are too high-risk for them to be able to easily obtain private insurance. And, up until now, the government has not provided any type of safety net for these men and women, who risk their lives every day to advance our Nation's space program.

Fortunately, a private fund, the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund, was formed to fill this breach. The fund paid an estimated $1.2 million to the families of the astronauts killed in the Challenger explosion. I would like to take a moment to commend Mr. Delbert Smith, a Washington, DC attorney and chairman of the fund, as well as all of the other men and women who stepped forward to help the families of these national heroes. It is selfless individuals like Mr. Smith and his colleagues that make America the greatest nation in the world.

Despite the sacrifice of these individuals, the fact is that the government should have taken care of the families of these astronauts. Just as we take care of our veterans, we should ensure that our astronauts do not have to worry about the financial survival of their families if the unthinkable happens. And while there will always be a place for organizations like the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund, Congress has a responsibility to take care of the brave men and women in our human space flight program.

Unfortunately, it pains me to say that this is one lesson we did not learn from the Challenger disaster. After the Columbia explosion, I was shocked to learn that there is still no provision for the Federal Government to ensure that the families of astronauts are taken care of in these tragic circumstances.

We all pray that we will never have to suffer through another tragedy like the Challenger and Columbia explosions. But it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that we are prepared in case it does happen again. Therefore, today I am introducing a bill that would allow astronauts to participate in the Servicemember's Group Life Insurance program. As my colleagues know, this is the insurance program that is set up for our men and women in the military. With relatively low payments, service members are eligible to up to $250,000 in life insurance. I believe that astronauts should also be eligible for this program, and that is why I am proposing this legislation.

In closing, something like this should have been done in 1986, following the Challenger disaster. Unfortunately, 17 years later, Congress still has not acted to fix this problem. I say to my colleagues, we must not let even one more astronaut put his or her life at risk until we have ensured that the government will be there to provide for their children and their families. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure, and I hope we can get it approved quickly. I thank the chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue I've fought long and hard on--the risk posed to children by arsenic-treated wood playground equipment.

There is now a government study which demonstrates the link between wood laced with an arsenic preservative called chromated copper arsenate or CCA and an increased risk of lung and bladder cancer.

Last Friday, the scientists at the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a report that concluded that 2 to 100 children out of 1 million will get bladder and lung cancer from their exposure to arsenic-treated wood playground equipment.

This is disturbing.

Especially since CCA was used to preserve 98 percent of the wood produced for residential uses in the United States in 2001.

Since March of 2001, when media reports emerged about elevated levels of arsenic in playground soil and numerous playgrounds in the State of Florida closed as a result, I have been pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to complete its long-awaited study on the dangers posed by this arsenic preservative.

I am still waiting.

To spur action on this issue, in the last 2 years, I have filed legislation mandating warning labels on all arsenic-treated wood to inform consumers that the wood they were purchasing contained a carcinogen.

Further, my past legislation required the EPA to complete its study, begun long before the CPSC started its study, regarding the risks posed by arsenic-treated wood.

And, finally, I introduced legislation to ban the residential uses of arsenic-treated wood.

Meanwhile, EPA reached an agreement with the wood preserving industry to voluntarily phase out the manufacture of CCA-treated wood for residential purposes by December 31, 2003.

However, a year has passed since EPA reached that agreement and they still have not published a final rule in the Federal Register making the phase-out permanent, they still have not completed their own risk assessment of the dangers posed to children playing on CCA-treated equipment and a New York Times article in December 2002, reported that the administration may be reconsidering the phaseout.

For those reasons, today I again introduce legislation to ban the manufacture of arsenic-treated wood for residential uses, including use as a mulch, to set a date certain for completion of EPA's risk assessment and to require the EPA to conduct a public education program to inform the public about how they can decrease their risk of contracting cancer from CCA-treated wood.

The legislation also provides for the safe disposal of CCA-treated wood to prevent arsenic from contaminating our groundwater.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation entitled the ``Military Family Access to Dental Care Act.'' This legislation, while limited in its scope, will have a profound effect on the lives of our military service members and their families particularly those serving our country at remote rural bases.

Current law provides reimbursement for military dependents who, when referred, must travel at least one-hundred miles to receive specialty health care. However, specialty dental care has not been interpreted within the scope of this provision. In a rural State like New Mexico, this exclusion has a real impact on quality of life.

For example, a military dependent stationed at Cannon Air Force Base in eastern New Mexico is not able to receive periodontic or orthodontic care in nearby Clovis these specialties are simply not available. Instead, to receive such care, that dependent would have to travel 225 miles to Albuquerque, 110 miles to Lubbock, Tx, or 104 miles to Amarillo often two or three times to alleviate a special dental problem. The cost of traveling these long distances can eat away at a military family's income and degrade their quality of life.

The legislation I propose expands the scope of existing law to ensure that travel of at least one-hundred miles for referred specialty dental care is reimbursable. It is my firm belief that this small but practical bill can improve the lives of many military families, especially those assigned to bases in the West. What is more, it sends a signal to our military personnel and their families that we recognize the sacrifices they make for us and want to respond by addressing their needs whenever we can. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

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